AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The petitioners have filed O.A.Nos.888 and 964 of 1998, seeking to challenge an order of the third respondent, dated
16.09.1997. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matters stood transferred to this Court and were renumbered as W.P.Nos.37905 and
37693 of 2006.
W.P. No. 37905 of 2006, which arose out of O.A. No. 888 of 1998, is filed by one Jambagalakshmi and two of her children, namely V.
Jayaprakash and Suganya. W.P. No. 37693 of 2006, which arose out of O.A. No. 964 of 1998, is filed by V.Jayaprakash, who is the son of the
first petitioner in the other W.P. In both the cases, the challenge is to the very same order, dated 16.09.97 passed by the third respondent,
declining the claim for compassionate appointment on the ground of the death of Dr. D. Venkateswaralu, who was employed in the Supervisory
Unit of the National Maleria Eradication Programme, functioning under the control of the third respondent. It is not clear as to why the second writ
petition was filed against the very same order when the first writ petition itself challenges the same. In the second W.P. (O.A. No. 964 of 1998)
against column No. 7, the pendency of the previous O.A. was not mentioned and the conduct of the petitioner in this regard is highly objectionable.
On notice from the Tribunal, the first respondent has filed a detailed reply affidavit, dated 2.8.2000 together with supporting documents.
The claim of the petitioners were rejected on the ground that one Tmt. Devi Bahsyam Seshamani was the legally wedded wife of the deceased
Dr. D. Venkateswaralu and she has also produced the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 191 of 1981, dated 29.08.1981 rendered by the District
Munsif Court, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District (Andhra Pradesh). The petitioners, except basing their claim on the basis of a legal
heirship certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Tiruchirappalli, have no other proof regarding the lawful marriage between the first petitioner and the
deceased D.Venkateswaralu.
With reference to the claim made by the petitioners, it was stated that totally six women have claimed to be the wife of late D.Venkateswaralu
and he was facing a disciplinary action on grounds of bigamous marriage contravening the Government Servant Conduct Rules. In paragraphs 5
and 6 of the reply affidavit, the following averments have been made by the first respondent:
... As this is a case of an officer having acquired four wives as held proved by the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings all the four claimants
have been advised to file a suit in the court of Law and obtain legal authority so as to take further action in the matter of sanctioning the retirement
and other benefits due to the family of the deceased Government Servant.
Tmt. Dwibhashyam Seshamani had filed a suit in the court of the Principal District Munsif Ramachandrapuram in O.S. No. 191 of 1981 and the
same had been decreed in her favour that she is the lawfully and legitimately wedded wife of Dr. D. Venkateswaralu and that none of the
dependents hold any status (copy enclosed). Minor Ramachandran, S/o Thangam Venkateswaralu filed a suit IA No. 8658/82 in O.S. No.
3020/82 in the city civil court, Madras on 22.4.82 for declaration of his share in the amounts due to the legal heirs and to restrain the department
from disbursing the amount to the legal heirs by means of a temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit. Minors Padmaja Dorothy and Mary
Gladi Seetha Children of Tmt. Elizabeth Zona also filed a suit O.S. No. 34/82, vacation Judge Court, Tiruchirapalli claiming themselves as legal
heirs for settlement of service benefits due to the deceased officer to them. Later a compromises judgment has been issued by the City Civil Court
at Madras in O.S. No. 2601/84, dated 15-4-87 based on which the terminal benefits due to the deceased Government Servant were paid to the
persons in equal shares as per the agreements made in the said suit (copy enclosed).
Unless the petitioners are able to produce a valid civil court order, declaring that they are the legal heirs of late Venkateswaralu, they cannot be
granted any relief in the writ petitions. No exception can be taken to the stand taken by the respondents. The petitioners have not made out any
case for granting the prayer made by them. Hence the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs.