Telangana High Court
Gillela Laxmi vs State Of Telangana on 26 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL No.1010 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri K.M. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for
the appellant and Sri S. Satyanarayana Rao, learned
Government Pleader for Services-I appears for respondent
Nos.2 to 6.
2. The learned writ Court dismissed the writ petition on
the grounds of delay and also since the validity of the
marriage, allegations of bigamy and entitlement to
succession benefits involved disputed questions of fact,
requiring evidence which could not be adjudicated in the
writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the prayer of the writ
petitioner for issuance of a direction upon the official
respondents not to issue any revenue records of rights,
pass books, pahani in respect of certain survey numbers in
favour of respondent No.7 at Katkur Village and further
direction to pay the pension to the writ petitioner alone in
place of respondent No.7 was rejected.
3. Respondent No.7 being the nominee of the deceased
employee got compassionate appointment on the death of
her husband on 05.07.2010. The appellant by way of a
memorandum of understanding dated 29.09.2010 waived
any claim over the service benefits of the deceased stating
that she is no way connected with the benefits and
compassionate appointment. After eight years of issuance
of family member certificate to respondent No.7, the
appellant preferred the writ petition with the aforesaid
prayers. The claim of the appellant was contested both by
the official respondents and respondent No.7. Respondent
No.7 also stated that she has filed O.S.No.352 of 2014
before the Additional Junior Civil Judge at Husnabad for
declaring her as legally wedded wife of the deceased.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the said
suit has been dismissed for default.
4. The appellant is seeking the benefit of Rs.4,50,000/-
received by respondent No.7 as agreed between the
appellant and respondent No.7 for foregoing her claim to
other service benefits and compassionate appointment.
5. The learned writ Court upon consideration of the
entire materials placed on record by the parties refused to
grant relief to the appellant on the aforesaid grounds.
6. In appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has
reiterated the grounds urged and also stated that the
appellant's claim for Rs.4,50,000/- by virtue of the
memorandum of understanding entered into with
respondent No.7 would be barred by delay in a regular suit
before the civil Court.
7. We do not appreciate the plea urged for invoking the
jurisdiction of the writ Court when such a claim would be
barred before the civil Court on ground of delay. Moreover,
as rightly observed by the learned writ Court since the
petitioner has foregone any claim over the service benefits
of the deceased by entering into a memorandum of
understanding with respondent No.7, such a claim cannot
be adjudicated in writ proceedings and that too at such
length of time. Therefore, we do not find any error in the
impugned order.
8. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
______________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
Date: 26.112025
ES
