Telangana High Court

Smt.Gurrala Laxmi vs Apsrtc,Md,Hyd, 5 on 27 October, 2022

Bench: E.V. Venugopal

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

                WRIT PETITION No.20181 of 2014

ORDER:

1 Assailing the Proceedings No.AP/SRO/SID/Pen/PPO

No.14310/2014/53 dated 29.04.2014 of the 5th respondent as

illegal and arbitrary and further seeking a direction to the

respondents to arrange the pension payable under the

Employees Family Pension Scheme and Staff Retirement Benefit

Scheme from the date of death of her husband i.e. 29.03.2012

along with arrears and interest @ 12% p.a the petitioner filed the

present writ petition.

2 The case of the petitioner was that the petitioner is the wife

of one G.Komaraiah with whom her marriage was performed in

1975. Her husband joined the services of the 1st and 2nd

respondent Corporation as driver in 1980, on regular basis. Her

husband retired from service on 30.06.2011 on attaining the age

of superannuation. On 09.03.2012 the husband of the petitioner

died leaving behind the petitioner, two daughters and one son, as

his legal heirs. It is further submitted that the husband of the

petitioner was member of Employees Family Pension Scheme as

introduced by the 5th respondent as well as member of 3rd

respondent Staff Retirement Benefit Scheme Organisation. Hence

the petitioner made a representation, requesting the official

respondents to arrange family pension payable to her under the

above said schemes. But the official respondents, particularly,

the 5th respondent submits that there is a rival claim from one

Bharathi (Laxmi), the 6th respondent herein. The allegation of the

petitioner is that the 6th respondent herein was concubine of her

late husband, as such the 6th respondent is not entitled to any of

the benefits mentioned above. Hence the present writ petition.

3 The Law Officer of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed counter

affidavit, inter alia, admitting the employment and retirement of

the husband of the petitioner. He submitted that the Depot

Manager, Siddipet had forwarded the claim form of the retired

employee for sanction of Monthly Cash Benefit (MCB) duly

attesting the passport size photographs of the employee and his

wife named as Smt. G.Laxmi. Accordingly, the SRBS officer has

sanctioned the MCB amount @ Rs.200/- p.m. and credited the

same to the retired employee's account till 01.07.2012. He

further submitted that the Depot Manager, vide his letter dated

17.10.2013 forwarded the spouse payment claim in Form - 5. On

scrutiny, it is observed that the photograph on the spouse claim

is not identical to that of spare spouse ID card. On 30.12.2013 a

letter was addressed to the petitioner advising her to submit (a)

Bank account pass book, (b) Latest two passport size

photographs of the claimant with the attestation of the nit

Officer, (c) Original Spouse ID Card (issued by SRBS at the time

of retirement and (d) Nomination form or legal heir certificate,

since those documents are mandatory to ascertain the

genuineness of the claimant and to sanction the MCB. But as the

petitioner failed to respond, the case was kept pending. He

further submitted that the 5th respondent authority had received

a similar claim from the 6th respondent and the Provident

Authorities conducted an enquiry and rightly advised both the

petitioner and respondent No.6 to submit succession certificate

obtained from the competent civil Court to ascertain the rightful

beneficiary of the pension. It is further submitted that late

Komaraiah submitted photographs on Medical Identity Card in

Annexure B and entered the name of spouse as G.Laxmi aged 49

years. Similarly, the same information was entered in Annexure-

B which was an application form submitted by Employees opting

for medical facilities. However, when it came to the nomination

and declaration form which is undated under the Employees

Provident Funds and Employee Pension Scheme, Komaraiah

nominated his wife named 'G.Bharathi'. In another Nomination

and Declaration Form under the Employees Provident Funds and

Employees Family Pension Scheme before the APSRTC

Employees Provident Fund Trust which was dated 31.08.1996,

he nominated Smt. G.Laxmi as his wife. Similarly, Komaraiah

also entered the name of his wife as G.Laxmi as the Nomination

Form filed before the APSRTC Staff Benevolent cum Thrift Fund,

Hyderabad.

4 On the other hand the 6th respondent filed counter affidavit

contending that she is the wife of G.Komaraiah and that after the

retirement of her husband all the retiral benefits were paid to her

being the nominee to said Komaraiah. Komaraiah died on

09.03.2012 leaving behind her and her two children by name

G.Venkatesh and G.Jyothi. In her counter affidavit, the 6th

respondent further submitted that in the writ petition filed by the

Corporation being W.P.No.2261 of 2009 against an award passed

by the Industrial Tribunal wherein Komaraiah was directed to be

reinstated into service. That I.D was filed in connection with

some irregularities alleged to have been committed by

Komaraiah. After the death of Komaraiah, she had filed WPMP

(SR) No.101787 of 2012 for bringing her and her children as the

legal representatives of Komariah.

5 The writ petitioner filed reply affidavit reiterating the

contentions as were made in the writ affidavit. Along with the

reply affidavit, to prove her contention that she is the legally

wedded wife of late Komaraiah, she filed Family Identity Card

issued by Depot Manager, Charminar, House Hold Card showing

the family members details with group photo, death certificate of

Komaraiah issued to the petitioner, Joint photo of the petitioner

with her husband, and pension payment order of Komaraiah

showing G.Laxhmi (petitioner) as wife. The writ petitioner further

submitted in her reply affidavit that the 6th respondent is

claiming as if she is Gurrala Laxmi by impersonating her (writ

petitioner). The writ petitioner further submitted that even if the

6th respondent is considered to be the 2nd wife of late Komaraiah,

she cannot claim pension as long as she is surviving. As such the

action of the 5th respondent in arranging the family pension

under EPF scheme to the 6th respondent is contrary to the

scheme of Employees Family Pension Scheme.

6 As seen from the proceedings of the record, on 09.03.2017

this Court directed the learned standing counsel representing the

EPF organization to produce the original records relating to the

proceedings No.AP/SRO/SID/Pen/PPO No.14310/2014/53

dated 29.04.2014 of the 5th respondent. Accordingly on

16.03.2017 the record of Provident Fund Office was produced

wherein it was observed that different photograph was affixed in

one document and in all other documents, the claim is made on

behalf of G.Laxmi.

7 It is noticeable from the record that though claiming to be

the wife of late Komaraiah, the 6th respondent has not even

produced any material to prove her entitlement except filing an

affidavit.

8 Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the writ

petitioner strongly contends that the case of the petitioner should

be considered on merits as well as on facts and further submits

that the writ petitioner is suffering not only due to the sad

demise of her husband but also with this vexatious litigation and

draws the attention of this Court to the fact that the 6th

respondent had attempted to draw the pensionary benefits of the

late husband of the writ petitioner without there being any

legitimate relationship between her and late Komaraiah. Relying

upon the counter filed by the 6th respondent he submits that her

attempt itself amounts to impersonation and vehemently opposes

the claim of the 6th respondent and prays the Court that on this

point alone the Court should consider the case of the writ

petitioner.

9 On the other hand, Smt.K.Udayasri, learned counsel for

the 6th respondent, submits that the 6th is the legally wedded wife

of late Komaraiah and had begotten one male and one female

child through him and had been staying with him till his death.

He further submits that even the records prove so through the

nomination made by late Komaraiah before the Provident Fund

Authorities and further contends that attempt to withdraw the

pensionary benefits of late Komaraiah is per se not illegal and

more so the misrepresentation of the fact does not write off her

claim.

10 The learned standing counsel for the Corporation submits

that in the absence of any succession certificate / legal heir

certificate as mandated in the appropriate regulation of the

Corporation, the hands of the Corporation are tied to disburse

the amount in favour of either of the parties i.e. writ petitioner

and the 6th respondent and prays to dismiss the writ petition.

11 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,

this Court is of the opinion that this Court sitting under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, cannot decide the status of the

petitioner as well as the 6th respondent insofar as their

relationship with late Komaraiah is concerned since there are

some discrepancies and differences in the nominations made by

late Komaraiah. Inasmuch as there is claim and counter claim,

this Court is of the view that the Provident authorities have

rightly directed the petitioner and the 6th respondent to get

succession certificate from the competent civil Court.

12 On this point, I am fortified by the judgment of the High

Court of Gujarat in J.M.Prasad (Since deceased through Heirs

& L.Rs) Vs. State of Gujarat1, wherein in an identical situation,

the Gujarat High Court held as follows:

"Considering the rival contention, in my opinion, this factual aspect cannot be decided under writ jurisdiction mainly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, the authority has rightly called upon the petitioner and all concerned to produce succession certificate for getting benefits of pension, gratuity etc. of late Mr.J.M.Prasad. Further, the judgment of the Division of Bench, High Court of Gujarat is not applicable in the present case since here is the question about claim made by two women having legally wedded wife of late Mr.J.M.Prasad. Therefore, competent Civil Court would be the appropriate Court to decide the said aspect i.e. about status of each lady. Hence, the present petition is meritless and is required to be dismissed. Rule is discharged."

13 In the light of the principle enunciated in the case cited

supra, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the

respondent authorities to consider the claims of the petitioner as

well as the 6th respondent on their succession to the retiral

benefits and other entitlements of late Komaraiah in accordance

with the regulations of the Corporation and disburse the same to

the person who has the rightful succession. No order as to costs.

14 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this writ petition

shall stand closed.

______________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.