Skip to content
Order
  • Library
  • Features
  • About
  • Blog
  • Contact
Get started
Book a Demo

Order

At Order.law, we’re building India’s leading AI-powered legal research platform.Designed for solo lawyers, law firms, and corporate legal teams, Order helps you find relevant case law, analyze judgments, and draft with confidence faster and smarter.

Product

  • Features
  • Blog

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms

Library

  • Acts
  • Judgments
© 2025 Order. All rights reserved.
  1. Home/
  2. Library/
  3. High Court Of Andhra Pradesh/
  4. 2024/
  5. November

Jakkula Mary Puja, W/o. Jakkula Veeraju Age 40 Years, vs. the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Decided on 29 November 2024• Citation: WP/36407/2014• High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Download PDF

Read Judgment


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA  PRADESH   :: AMARAVATI               
                             (Special Original Jurisdiction)                      
                   FRIDAY, THE TWENTY  NINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER                     
                         TWO  THOUSAND  AND  TWENTY  FOUR                         
                                     PRESENT                                      
                        THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N                        
                          WRIT  PETITION NO: 36407 OF 2014                        
          Between:                                                                
          Jakkula Mary Puja, W/o. Jakkula Veeraju, age 40 years,                  
                                                               Occ; Cooli         
          Vidyanagar, Eluru, West Godavari District                               
                                                            ...PETITIONER         
                                       AND                                        
             1. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation,              
                                                                Rep by its        
               Chairman  and  Managing  Director Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad,         
               Hyderabad                                                          
            2. The APSRTC   Depot Manager, Eluru Depot, Eluru, West               
                                                                 Godavari         
               District                                                           
            3. J. Vijaya Lakshmi, Flat No. 203, Kunde Apartments,                 
                                                          Near L.V. Prasad        
               Hospital, R.R. Peta, Eluru                                         
                                                         ...RESPONDENTS           
               Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India            
                                                            praying that in       
          the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,              
                                                        the High Court may        
          be pleased to issue a writ, direction, order or orders                  
                                                       more particularly one      
          in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action                  
                                                               of the 2nd         
          respondent in paying the settlement dues of petitioner's                
                                                         deceased husband         
          Sri. Jakkula Veeraju to the 3rd respondent and not                      
                                                     providing compensatory       
          appointment either to the petitioner or to her daughter                 
                                                               in spite of        
          petitioner's representation dated 17.10.2014 as illegal,                
                                                         irregular, arbitrary,    
          malafide, without application of mind and against to                    
                                                       principles of natural      
          justice apart from being violative of Article 19 and                    
                                                    21 of the constitution of     

 r                                                                                
                                         2                                        
          India and consequentially direct the 2nd respondent to pay the remaining
          settlement due amount and  family pension of petitioner’s deceased      
          husband to  the petitioner and to provide job under compensatory        
          appointment either to the petitioner or to her daughter in the interest of
          justice.                                                                
          I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 45580 OF 2014)                             
               Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances   
          stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
          pleased to direct the 2nd respondent not to disburse any settlement due 
          amount in respect of petitioner's deceased husband Sri. Jakkula Veeraju in
          favor of the 3rd respondent pending disposal of the                     
                                                       above writ petition in     
          the interest of justice.                                                
          lA NO: 1 OF 2018                                                        
          Between:                                                                
          Jakkula Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. Late Jakkula Veeraju,                      
                                                      Aged about 49 years,        
          Occ; House hold, R/o. Flat No. 203, Kunde Apartments                    
                                                          Near L.V. Prasad        
          Hospital, R.R. Peta, Eluru                                              
                                          ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT  N0.3          
                                       AND                                        
            1. Jakkula Mary Puja, W/o. Jakkula Veeraju, age 40                    
                                                          years, Occ: Cooli       
               Vidyanagar, Eluru, West Godavari District                          
                                          ...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER           
            2. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation,               
                                                               Rep  by its        
               Chairman and  Managing  Director Bus Bhavan,  Musheerabad,         
               Hyderabad                                                          
            3. The APSRTC  Depot Manager, Eluru Depot, Eluru, West                
                                                                 Godavari         
               District                                                           
                                   ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS   1 AND 2          

                                         3                                        
                Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances  
          stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
           pleased to permit the petitioner to change her Counsel on record and to
          appoint the Counsel Mr.  Prakash Chakravarthy, as her Counsel to        
           represent on her behalf in the above WP.No.36407 of 2014 along with all
           miscellaneous petitions connected therein.                             
          IAN0:2  0F 2018                                                         
          Between:                                                                
          Jakkula Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. Late Jakkula Veeraju, Aged about 49 years, 
          Occ: House hold, R/o. Flat No. 203, Kunde Apartments Near L.V. Prasad   
          Hospital, R.R. Peta, Eluru                                              
                                           ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT  N0.3         
                                        AND                                       
             1. Jakkula Mary Puja, W/o. Jakkula Veeraju, age 40 years, Occ: Cooli 
               Vidyanagar, Eluru, West Godavari District                          
                                          ...RESPONDENT/WRIT  PETITIONER          
             2. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by its   
               Chairman  and  Managing  Director Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad,         
               Hyderabad                                                          
             3. The APSRTC  Depot Manager, Eluru Depot, Eluru, West Godavari      
               District                                                           
                                    ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS   1 AND 2         
               Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances   
          stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
          pleased to vacate the interim stay granted by this Hon'ble court in     
          WP.MP.no.  45580/2014 in WP.No. 36407/2014 on dated.                    
                                                            8th December,         
          2014 and consequently dismiss the writ petition No.                     
                                                      36407/2014 with costs       
          as the same is devoid of merits, in the interests of                    
                                                    justice.                      

                                         4                                        
    I    ^                                                                        
    r   /                                                                         
          lA NO: 1 OF 2024                                                        
               Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances   
          stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
          pleased to receive the counter copies on record by allowing the leave   
          petition in the above writ petition.                                    
          lA NO: 2 OF 2024                                                        
          Between:                                                                
          Jakkula Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. Late Jakkula Veeraju, R/o. Flat No. 203, Kunde
          Apartments Near L.V. Prasad Hospital, R.R. Peta, Eluru                  
                                                            ...PETITIONER         
                                       AND                                        
             1. Jakkula Mary Puja, W/o. Jakkula Veeraju, age 40 years, Occ; Cooli 
               Vidyanagar, Eluru, West Godavari District.                         
             2. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by its   
               Chairman  and  Managing  Director Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad,         
               Hyderabad                                                          
             3. The APSRTC  Depot Manager, Eluru Depot, Eluru, West Godavari      
               District                                                           
                                                         ...RESPONDENTS           
               Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances   
          stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
          pleased to  vacate the interim order dated 08.12.2014 passed in         
          WP.MP.no. 45580 of 2014 in WP.No. 36407 of 2014.                        
          Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI TATA SINGAIAH GOUD                      
          Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: S V RAMANA                       
          Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI BATTULA SANJAIAH GANDHI            
          The Court made the following: ORDER                                     

              r ’                                                                 
          /                                                                       
        1                                                                         
                APHC010576462014                                                  
                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH                 
                                        AT AMARAVATI           [3457]             
                     0^            (Special Original Jurisdiction)                
                     FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER                    
                           TWO THOUSAND  AND TWENTY FOUR                          
                                      PRESENT                                     
                       THE HONOURABLE   SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N                    
                              WRIT PETITION NO: 36407/2014                        
                Between:                                                          
                Jakkula Mary Puja, W/o. Jakkula Veeraju, age 40 Years ...Petitioner
                                        AND                                       
                The Andhra Pradesh State Road              ...Respondents         
                Transport Corporation and Others                                  
                Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. Tata Singaiah Goud              
                Counsel for the Respondent : Sri. Battula Sanjaiah Gandhi         
                                          Sri.S.V.Ramana                          
                                          Sri.Narasimha Rao Davuluri              
                The Court made the following Order:                               
                  1. The petitioner claims to be the legally wedded wife of one   
                     Jakkula Veeraju and that the husband of the petitioner died on
                     07.07.2013 while he was in service of the APSRTC. It is also 
                     submitted that the petitioner and Jakkula Veeraju have       
                                                                   a              
                                                               the 3^'^           
                     daughter from their marriage. It is submitted that           
                     respondent also claims to be the wife of Jakkula Veeraju.    
                  2. After the demise of the petitioner's husband, the petitioner 
                     approached the second respondent, submitted the family       
                     member certificate, and sought release of death benefits. The

                                          II2/I                                   
                                                           WP.No.36407 of 2014    
                     petitioner also requested that a job be provided to          
                                                          the petitioner's        
                     daughter under compassionate appointment.                    
                   3. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent has disbursed       
                                                              the entire          
                     settlement dues to the 3rd respondent and that an amount     
                                                                   of             
                     Rs.2,21,756/- towards the SSB and additional monetary        
                                                                benefit           
                     are due payable by the 2'^'^ respondent.                     
                   4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that         
                                                             the Family           
                     Member Certificate issued by Tahsildar, Eluru, on 27.11.2013,
                     would clarify that the petitioner is the wife of the         
                                                              deceased            
                     employee and that she and her daughter are entitled          
                                                                 to all           
                     government service benefits.                                 
                   5. The respondent Nos. 1 and 3 have filed their counters.      
                                                                  The             
                     official respondent in the counter submits that the          
                                                             deceased             
                     employee at the time of his appointment had nominated        
                                                                  his             
                     mother and later substituted the name of 3'^ respondent      
                                                                 as a             
                     nominee. It is also submitted that the said employee,        
                                                               while in           
                     service, had undergone a family planning operation           
                                                           at Eluru, and          
                     the names of the 3"'^ respondent and his children were       
                                                              recorded            
                     in the sterilization/family member certificates and          
                                                          also in the bus         
                     pass declaration.                                            

r                                                                                 
                                          //3//                                   
        • >r/                                                                     
                                                          WP.No.36407 of 2014     
                   6. It is also submitted that the employee submitted revised    
                     nominations up to 2002 nominating the respondent as his      
                     wife. There is also no evidence/nominations available in the 
                     records of the respondent to consider the petitioner as the  
                     wife of the deceased employee. It is submitted that all claims and
                     service benefits were paid to the 3'"'^ respondent.          
                   7. The learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 also   
                     submits that the settlement salary bill received from the Accounts
                     Officer is kept ready for payment; however, on account of the
                     stay granted by this Court, the same is withheld.            
                                                       the 3^*^ respondent        
                   8. The 3'''^ respondent in the counter submits that            
                     is the legally wedded wife, and the same is evident from the 
                     service register of the deceased employee. It is submitted that
                     the petitioner cannot step into the shoes of the 3'^'^ respondent
                     when there is no proof of marriage.                          
                   9. The short point for consideration of this Court is that, whether
                     this Court can grant the relief as sought for in the writ petition
                     directing respondents 1 and 2 to provide compassionate       
                     appointment either to the petitioner or her daughter and a further
                     direction to pay the remaining settlement amount and family  
                     pension to the petitioner.                                   

                                           UAH                                    
                                                            WP.No.36407of 2014    
                  10.  Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance         
                                                             on Mukesh            
                       Kumar and another Vs. The Union of India and othersL       
                                                                     It           
                      was held that the second wife's children would also         
                                                             be entitled to       
                      seeking compassionate appointment. The facts dealt          
                                                              with by the         
                      Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment referred above,       
                                                                    the           
                      Hon'bie Supreme Court considered whether the conditions     
                      imposed by the railway board circular that compassionate    
                      appointment cannot be granted to children born from         
                                                              the second          
                      wife of the deceased employee is legally sustainable.       
                                                                   The            
                      Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the children born       
                                                                 to the           
                      second wife can claim compassionate appointment. However,   
                      the facts of the present case are entirely different.       
                                                            As such, the          
                      judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the         
                                                               petitioner         
                      would be of no relevance to the facts of the present        
                                                            case.                 
                 11. • The petitioner has not submitted any document              
                                                           to substantiate        
                      her claim that she is the wife of the deceased employee.    
                                                                   The            
                      family member certificate furnished by the petitioner,      
                                                               which is           
                      issued by the Tahsildar, cannot be considered as a          
                                                            substitute for        
                      a legal heir certificate. Heir is defined under Section     
                                                             3 (f) of The         
                      Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The competent authority         
                                                              to issue a          
                      legal heir certificate would be the civil Court, wherein    
                                                              the Court           
                 ^ SLP(C) No.18571 of 2018, decided on 24.02.2022                 

                                         //5//                                    
        » '                                               WP.No.36407of2014       
                    could apply the applicable succession laws such as the Hindu  
                    Succession Act or the Indian Succession Act. The civil Court  
                    would also go into the evidence adduced by the parties to arrive
                    at a finding. In the absence of any document substantiating the
                    claim of being the second wife of the deceased employee, this 
                    Court is not inclined to give a finding on the entitlement of the
                    petitioner or her daughter to claim any service benefits, including
                    compassionate appointment. This Court is not inclined to      
                    entertain the writ petition and the same deserves to be       
                    dismissed.                                                    
                12.  In the result, the writ petition is dismissed without costs. 
                    Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed. 
                                                           Sd/- M SRINIVAS        
                                                     ASSISTANT REGISTRAR          
                                   //TRUE COPY//                                  
                                                     /^SECTlSig                   
                                                                 OFFICER          
          To,                                                                     
             1. One CC to Sri Tata Singaiah Goud Advocate [OPUC]                  
             2. One CC to Sri Narasimha Rao Davuluri Advocate [OPUC]              
             3. One CC to Sri S V Ramana Advocate [OPUC]                          
            4. One CC to Sri Battula Sanjaiah Gandhi Advocate [OPUC]              
            5. Three CD Copies                                                    
          TF                                                                      

           HIGH   COURT                                                           
           DATED:29/11/2024                                                       
           ORDER                                                                  
          WP.No.36407      of 2014                                                
          DISMISSING     THE   W.P.,  WITHOUT     COSTS