Jayamma Chengarapu v. The Singereni Collieries Company Limited,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.27881 of 2018 ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not including the name of petitioner's adopted son viz., Sri Chenigarapu Santhosh as nominee in her service record and Coal Mine Provident Fund record as illegal and arbitrary and consequently sought a direction to the respondents to enter the name of Sri Chenigarapu Santhosh as nominee in her service record and Coal Mine Provident Fund record for the purpose of receiving terminal and other benefits. Heard Mr.Surendra Desai, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.J.Srinivas Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

It has been contended by the petitioner that she is an employee of the respondent Company and she has adopted one Sri Chenigarapu Santhosh as her son and after adopting her son, she has submitted a representation to the respondents to include her adopted son's name in the service record and Coal Mine Provident Fund record, so as to enable him to receive terminal benefits and service benefits of the petitioner. The grievance of petitioner is that the respondents are not considering her request. To that effect, the petitioner has submitted a representation on 24.01.2018. But, so far, the respondents have not passed any orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner nor entered the name of her adopted son in the service record and Coal Mine Provident Fund record.

Learned counsel for petitioner contends that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents has contended that the representation of the petitioner will be considered and appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with law.

This Court, having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 24.01.2018 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J Date:04-02-2019 Prv