AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash B. Adi
Petitioners have called in question the endorsement issued by respondent No. 2 dated 29.10.2011 produced at Annexure `A'', wherein respondent No. 2 has informed the petitioners to approach the Civil Court for necessary orders to claim terminal benefits of late Dr. H.K. Basavaraju, the deceased employee of the University. Petitioners 1 and 2 claim that they are the mother and brother of the deceased respectively. They sought for payment of terminal benefits of the deceased such as General Provident Fund, death-cum-retirement gratuity, pension etc., inter alia alleging that Susheela, wife of the deceased is chargesheeted for an offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC for murder of her husband, the deceased employee of the University. As such, she is not entitled for payment of gratuity and family pension.
Before the second respondent - University, apart from the claim of Smt. Susheela, there was also claim of her minor daughter one Shruthi. Further, one Smt. Manjula is also claiming that she is the wife of the deceased. When there is a dispute as regard to who are the members, who are entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased employee, the University cannot decide the said issue and it has rightly relegated the parties to the Civil Court to get the said issue settled. As such, I do not find that, there is any error in the impugned endorsement issued by the second respondent. If the parties get appropriate decree, the same may be produced before the University and based on the same, claim may be made.
Accordingly, the petitions stand dismissed.