MANIKYAMMA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. John Meloncthon, who died on 10-9-1977, was a Technical Superintentendent in the Finger Prints Bureau, C. I. D. He died while in service. While in service, he was governed by the Family Benefit Fund Scheme. He had nominated the writ petitioner, Smt. B. Manikyamma, his step-mother, as the person to receive the benefit under the said scheme, after his death. The petitioner says that the wife of the deceased - impleaded as 3rd respondent herein - had abandoned him long ago, had been living separately and that, she never came to the deceased's house either during his lifetime or later. But, it is stated, the 3rd respondent put forward a claim for the amount payable under the Family Benefit Fund Scheme, disputing the right of the writ petitioner as the nominee thereunder, to receive it. Though the writ petitioner asserted her own exclusive right as the nominee to receive the said amount, the Government has, under its Memo dated 27-7-1979, held that the 3rd respondent alone is legally entitled to receive the amount, and not the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging the Memo in this writ petition, as illegal and contrary to the relevant Rules.

(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Government, stating that according to the Rules governing the Family Benefit Fund Scheme, an employee is not free to nominate any one he likes. The nomination must be in the order specified in the Rules. Since the nomination by the deceased in favour of the petitioner was contrary to the Rules, Government is entitled to ignore the same, and pay the amount to the wife of the deceased. In the counter-affidavit it is admitted that there were differences between the deceased and his wife, the 3rd respondent, and that, by the pasasge of time, those differences widened. It is also admitted that the 3rd respondent or her children did not attend the funeral rites of the deceased. It is then stated that, though the writ petitioner is nominated by the deceased under the scheme, the same is not in accordance with the Rules and, therefore, the Government clarified the matter under the impugned Memo.

(3.) The 3rd respondent has filed a separate counter-affidavit, denying the various allegations in the writ petition. She has pointed out that the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is not sworn to by the petitioner herself, but by some one else on her behalf, whose knowledge of the relevant facts is doubtful. She submitted that the nomination made by her deceased husband in favour of the writ petitioner is not valid. She denied the allegation that she had abandoned her husband or that she did not attend the funeral rites of the deceased. She stated that she was living in her father's house with the consent of her husband, and because she was employed at Hyderabad, while the deceased was posted in districts. She stated that whenever her husband was in Hyderabad, he was staying with her family. She, however, statad that from 1970 onwards when her husband was transferred to Rajahmundry, he was completely under the influence of the writ petitioner and became addicted to bad habits, and lost all affection for his own wife and children and that several attempts made by her and her family to encourage him to lead a normal family life came to nought. All this was on account of the wickedness on the part of the writ petitioner. She submitted that, in law, she and her children are the legal heirs of the deceased and, therefore, ate entitled to the amount under the said scheme.