A recent verdict given by Justice Naveen Rao of the Hyderabad High Court states that daughters too are equally entitled to their deceased father’s terminal benefits.
While dismissing a petition filed by one C Chandrasekhar, son of a deceased employee of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), the judge ruled that an employer is not at fault if he decides to distribute the terminal benefits of a deceased employee in equal parts among the sons, daughters and other heirs of that employee. Chandrasekhar has however challenged the decision on the basis of argument that his father had nominated his mother; she should receive all the benefits and also that his sister is married and is not entitled.
Chandrasekhar had applied for a job under compassionate grounds. His father Rajagopal died in December 2014 while in service. However, the TTD, in accordance with the service records of its employee, Rajagopal, asked him to obtain a no-objection letter from his sister for securing a job in the TTD under compassionate grounds. According to him, his sister was married and has been living separately from the year 2000 and hence is not eligible for any of the benefits.
Justice Naveen Rao in his verdict portioned the terminal benefits into equal parts and apportioned the same accordingly. They were distributed to the deceased employee's wife, son, daughter and his parents.
This decision was challenged by Chandrasekhar and he filed a plea against it.
In his petition, Chandrasekhar argued that married daughters were not entitled for terminal benefits of the father. “Only unmarried daughter and widow of the deceased employee are entitled for terminal benefits," he said.
His petition was, however, dismissed and declared void by the judge who said “As a daughter of the deceased employee, she is also equally entitled to receive a share in her father's terminal benefits. No wrong in what the TTD did.”
While dismissing a petition filed by one C Chandrasekhar, son of a deceased employee of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), the judge ruled that an employer is not at fault if he decides to distribute the terminal benefits of a deceased employee in equal parts among the sons, daughters and other heirs of that employee. Chandrasekhar has however challenged the decision on the basis of argument that his father had nominated his mother; she should receive all the benefits and also that his sister is married and is not entitled.
Chandrasekhar had applied for a job under compassionate grounds. His father Rajagopal died in December 2014 while in service. However, the TTD, in accordance with the service records of its employee, Rajagopal, asked him to obtain a no-objection letter from his sister for securing a job in the TTD under compassionate grounds. According to him, his sister was married and has been living separately from the year 2000 and hence is not eligible for any of the benefits.
Justice Naveen Rao in his verdict portioned the terminal benefits into equal parts and apportioned the same accordingly. They were distributed to the deceased employee's wife, son, daughter and his parents.
This decision was challenged by Chandrasekhar and he filed a plea against it.
In his petition, Chandrasekhar argued that married daughters were not entitled for terminal benefits of the father. “Only unmarried daughter and widow of the deceased employee are entitled for terminal benefits," he said.
His petition was, however, dismissed and declared void by the judge who said “As a daughter of the deceased employee, she is also equally entitled to receive a share in her father's terminal benefits. No wrong in what the TTD did.”
Comments
Post a Comment