JUDGMENT : A.V. SESHA SAI, J. 1. This Writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed assailing the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter called ‘the Tribunal’) dated 13.8.2010 passed in O.A.No. 5984 of 2009 filed by the petitioners herein. By virtue of the said order, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioners herein. 2. The petitioners herein filed the said O.A.No.5984 of 2009 under Section 19 of A.P. Administrative Tribunals’ Act, 1985, seeking the following relief: “To set aside the impugned letters (1) Letter No.AE(2)/1076/2006 dated 2.4.2009 of the Chief Accounts Officer, O/o the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad addressed to the first applicant (2) Letter No.AE(2)/1076/2006 dated 17.4.2009 of the Chief Accounts Officer, O/o the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad addressed to the counsel for the applicants as being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and null and void by declaring that the applicants are entitled to 50% of the family pension and retirement gratuity other attendance service benefits payable consequent on the death of late Sri Mohd. Allauddin S/o Mohd. Imamuddin who died on 26.1.2009 in harness while working as Office Subordinate in the O/o the first respondent herein in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in nutshell, which are essential and imperative for adjudication of the controversy involved in the instant writ petition are as under: 4. Claiming to be the wife and children of one late Sri Mohd. Allauddin, petitioners herein filed O.A.No.5984 of 2009 before the Tribunal contending as follows. (i) First petitioner/1st applicant is the second wife of late Sri Mohd. Allauddin, who passed away on 26.1.2009 in harness, while working as Office Subordinate in the office of 1st respondent herein and that the said deceased Mohd. Allauddin married the 1st petitioner herein on 16.6.1985 and the 1st petitioner gave birth to two sons namely Mohd. Zameeruddin and Mohd. Naseeruddin and one daughter Mrs. Shanaz Begum, who are petitioners 2 to 4 herein. (ii) The names of petitioners 2 to 4/applicants 2 to 4 have been entered in the service record of Mohd. Allauddin along with the names of children through his first wife Mrs. Fahmida Sultana and the deceased Mohd. Allauddin also told the 1st petitioner/1st applicant that her name was also got entered by him in the service record. (iii) Sri Salauddin, eldest son of late Sri Mohd. Allauddin along with the names of children through his first wife Mrs. Fahmida Sultana and the deceased Mohd. Allauddin also told the 1st petitioner/1st applicant that her name was also got entered by him in the service record. (iii) Sri Salauddin, eldest son of late Sri Mohd. Allauddin through the first wife, who is shown as 5th respondent and aged 27 years owns welding business at Siddipet, Medak district, as such he is not entitled to seek compassionate appointment. The first wife of late Mohd. Allauddin and her children are dependant on the income of the said eldest son, Salauddin. (iv) Late Mohd. Allauddin purchased a residential house bearing No.12-4-81/1, situated at Murshadgadda, Siddipet, Medak district in the name of his first wife, Mrs. Fahmida Sultana, wherein she and her children are presently residing (v) Eldest son of 1st applicant/1st petitioner herein i.e. Mohd. Zameeruddin is a student of B.Sc. 1st year and is entitled for compassionate appointment in the place of his deceased father and there are no bread winners in the family and the applicants/petitioners herein were solely dependant on late Mohd. Allauddin during his lifetime. (vi) First applicant/1st petitioner is entitled for grant of half of the family pension and half of the monetary benefits as per Rule 50(6)(a)(i) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. In the absence of any nomination, DCRJ and other service benefits are payable to the legal heirs of the deceased Government employees in equal shares and as such the applicants/petitioners herein are entitled to half of the pensionary benefits and other service benefits and compassionate appointment. (vii) On 23.3.2009, the 1st petitioner/1st applicant requested for issuance of service certificate of her husband for obtaining legal heir certificate from the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer and the concerned officials of the 1st respondent informed that such service certificate of pensionary benefits cannot be given and threatened that they would recover the amounts paid towards LTC in respect of petitioners 2 to 4/applicants 2 to 4 and informed that they are going to arrange payment of all benefits to the first wife and her children only ignoring the claim of petitioners/applicants. (viii) Petitioners/applicants got issued a notice dated 27.3.2009 to the respondents 1 and 3. (viii) Petitioners/applicants got issued a notice dated 27.3.2009 to the respondents 1 and 3. In reply to the said notice, the 2nd respondent issued impugned letter dated 2.4.2009, rejecting the request for sanction of monetary benefits and compassionate appointment by referring to Rule 25 of A.P. Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964. While referring to the legal notice got issued by the petitioners on 27.3.2009 through their counsel, the Chief Accounts Officer, 2nd respondent herein vide Letter No. AE (2)/1076/2006 dated 17.4.2009 informed that as per Rule 25 of A.P. Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964, no Government Servant irrespective of religion shall not marry second time without the prior permission of the Government and as such second wife shall not be eligible for pensionary benefits i.e. family pension and retirement gratuity and no family pension and retirement gratuity be divided between two widows. The impugned letters dated 2.4.2009 and 17.4.2009 are contrary to Rule 50(6)(a)(i) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. 5. Resisting the said Original Application and the contentions advanced therein, the 2nd respondent filed a counter before the Tribunal with the following averments: (i) According to the declaration given by late Mohd. Allauddin on 26.11,1991, the following are his family members: (ii) On 12.11.1999, late Mohd. Allauddin declared two more names as his family members namely; (iii) As per family members declaration given twice by late Mohd. Allauddin, Office Subordinate, he has only one wife i.e. Smt.Fahmida Sultana and (6) children and there is no entry in the service register declaring Mrs.Rukhia Banu as the second wife. (iv) The fact that late Mohd. Allauddin, Office Subordinate has two wives came to light when Smt.Rukhia Banu, second wife of late Mohd. Allauddin submitted an application to the Chief Accounts Officer on 4.2.2009 for payment of pensionary benefits. The names of the applicants/children were entered in the service register of late Mohd. Allauddin because of the declaration submitted by him. (v) Sri Salauddin, son of the first wife will be considered for compassionate appointment if he is found to be eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds and also subject to the outcome of the Original Application. (vi) The entitlement of compassionate appointment will be examined only after the judgment of the Hon’ble Court declaring the legality of the marriage by Smt. Fahmida Sultana. (vi) The entitlement of compassionate appointment will be examined only after the judgment of the Hon’ble Court declaring the legality of the marriage by Smt. Fahmida Sultana. (vii) In view of Rule 25 of A.P. Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and Circular Memo No.11027-B/26/Pen.I/87 dated 20.8.1991 and Circular Memo No.36840-A/329/A2/Pen.I/93 dated 11.9.1996, the request of the applicants cannot be considered as the deceased employee contracted second marriage without the permission of the Government. (viii) Sub-rule (6)(a)(i) of Rule 50 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 can be invoked by second wife only when she was married with permission of the Government and since late Mohd. Allauddin married Rukhia Banu without the permission of the Government, she cannot invoke the said rule. 6. The 3rd respondent, Director of State Audit also filed a counter affidavit before the Tribunal, stating that the applicants are not entitled for any relief from the Tribunal in view of Rule 25 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and the circulars dated 11.9.1996 and 20.8.1991 issued by Government of A.P. 7. The respondents 4 to 7 also filed a counter affidavit before the Tribunal, contending as follows: (i) The deceased entered the name of Fahmida Sultana in the family benefit fund scheme as nominee and also in APGLI scheme. (ii) The respondents got every reason to dispute the allegations made in the O.A. that the 1st applicant is the second wife and other applicant are her children to the deceased. The factum and bonafides of the allegations of the marriage made in paragraph VI(1) of the O.A. is denied. (iii) A combined reading of Rule 25 of A.P. Civil services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and Rule 50(6)(a)(i) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 would negative the contentions of the applicants. The marriage of the 1st applicant is in dispute. 8. The Tribunal, by virtue of the impugned order dated 13.8.2010, while recording a finding that though the second marriage is permissible under Muslim Personal Law, the A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules are specific about taking prior permission and the Revised Pension Rules do not give sanction of retirement benefits to the second wife, dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioners herein. 9. 9. Calling in question the validity and legal acceptability of the said order passed by the Tribunal, the present writ petition has been filed by the unsuccessful applicants before the Tribunal, prinicipally contending that the marriage between late Mohd. Allauddin and the 1st applicant/1st petitioner is a legal and valid marriage under Mohammedian Law and that 4th respondent did not produce any record of her marriage with late Mohd. Allauddin and that the Tribunal did not consider the effect of Rule 50(6)(A)(i) of A.P. Revised pension Rules, 1980 and that Rule 25 of A.P. Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964 does not debar the second wife and her children from claiming family pension, retirement gratuity and other attendant service benefits payable to the deceased Government employee. 10. This Court, by order dated 10.6.2011 in W.P.M.P.No.18725 of 2011, granted interim order staying the disbursement of the amounts. 11. The official respondents filed a counter affidavit, reiterating their stand before the Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 12. The unofficial respondents 4 to 7 who are the contesting respondents have also filed a counter affidavit in the same lines as was filed before the Tribunal and eventually prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 13. Heard Sri Mohd. Ghulam Hussain, counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri K. Lakshmana Chary, learned counsel for contesting respondents 4 to 7 and perused the material available on record. 14. Sri Mohd. Ghulam Hussain, counsel for the petitioners, reiterating the contentions advanced in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, strenuously argues that the Tribunal erroneously dismissed the O.A. filed by the petitioners having categorically found that the second marriage is permissible under Muslim Personal Law and that the Tribunal failed to consider the effect of Rule 50(6)(a)(i) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and that the approach of the Tribunal while dealing with Rule 25 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 is erroneous and not in accordance with law and that the names of the children were also entered in the declarations and that the marriage certificate dated 25.2.2009 issued by the A.P. State Wakf Board clearly discloses the factum of marriage between the 1st petitioner and the deceased employee. He further contends that the impugned letters dated 2.4.2009 and 17.4.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent herein are liable to be set aside as the same are not in accordance with law. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners has placed reliance on the judgments in Zainab Bee v. Fatima Begum and another 2005 (5) ALT 112 , Saleha Fatima and others v. Mirza fazal Hussain Baig and others AIR 2009 AP 103 , Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Sengupta and others 2009 (6) ALT 15 (SC) and Bengal Iron Corporation and another v. Commercial Tax Officer and others 1994 Supp (1) SCC 310. 15. In Zainab Bee’s case (1 supra), this Court at paragraph 4 of the said judgment held as under: “4. The controversy in this Second Appeal is very limited. It is not in dispute that the appellant as well as the 1st respondent were married to late Sabit Khan. The dispute arose after his death as regards the sharing of pensionary benefits. The opposition of the claim of the 1st respondent by the appellant was only on the basis of the nomination in the service records. Even assuming that there existed such a nomination in her favour, it only enables her to receive the benefits, which in turn, are required to be shared in accordance with the relevant law of succession. Time and again, the Supreme Court held so in relation to the payment of insurance claims, the nomination does not take away the rights of individuals on the basis of succession. The trial Court took the view that once the marriage of the 1st respondent with the deceased-employee is proved, she is entitled to receive the pensionary benefits. 16. In Saleh Fatima’s case (2 supra), this Court at paragraph 15 of the said judgment held as under: “…………….When once the amount is released by the insurance company to the nominee discharging the insurance policy, it becomes the estate of the deceased in the hands of the first defendant. As the amount was disbursed by the insurance company by way of pay order to State Bank of Hyderabad at Hyderabad and when the amount was credited to the account of the first defendant, it became the estate of the deceased, thereby it can be treated as Maturka of the deceased. The law on this subject is very clear. As the amount was disbursed by the insurance company by way of pay order to State Bank of Hyderabad at Hyderabad and when the amount was credited to the account of the first defendant, it became the estate of the deceased, thereby it can be treated as Maturka of the deceased. The law on this subject is very clear. Simply because one person is nominated to receive the amount, it will not become the absolute property of the nominee. In the present case the first defendant being the wife was nominated to receive the amount. If a third party is nominated, who is readily available for receiving the amount, he cannot claim that he becomes the owner of the property to the exclusion of the legal heirs. On applying the same analogy and in view of the established law of the land, it can be safely concluded that all the legal heirs are entitled to a share in the property as per Muslim Personal Law………..” 17. In Shipra Sengupta’s case (3 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph 19 of the said judgment held as under: “In view of the clear legal position, it is made abundantly clear that the amount in any head can be received by the nominee, but the amount can be claimed by the heirs of the deceased in accordance with law of succession governing them. In other words, nomination does not confer any beneficial interest on the nominee. In the instant case amounts so received are to be distributed according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The State Bank of India is directed to release half of the amount of general provident fund to the appellant now within two months from today along with interest.” 18. In Bengal Iron Corporation’s case (4 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph 18 of the said judgment held as under: “So far as clarifications/circulars issued by the Central Government and/or State Government are concerned, they represent merely their understanding of the statutory provisions. They are not binding upon the Courts. IT-is true that those clarifications and circulars were communicated to the concerned dealers but even so nothing prevents the State from recovering the tax, if in truth such tax was leviable according to law., There can be no estoppels against the statute. They are not binding upon the Courts. IT-is true that those clarifications and circulars were communicated to the concerned dealers but even so nothing prevents the State from recovering the tax, if in truth such tax was leviable according to law., There can be no estoppels against the statute. The understanding of the Government, whether in favour or against the assessee, is nothing more than its understanding and opinion. It is doubtful whether such clarifications and circulars bind the quasi-judicial functioning of the authorities under the act. While acting in quasi-judicial capacity, they are bound by law and not by any administrative instructions, opinions, clarifications or circulars. Law is what is declared by this Court and the High Court-to wit, it is for this Court and the High Court to declare what does a particular provision of statute say, and not for the executive. Of course, the Parliament/Legislature never speaks or explains what does a provision enacted by it mean.” 19. During the course of arguments, it is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners that his clients have instituted a suit, being O.S.No.2802 of 2011, on the file of Court of XIX Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on 10.10.2011 for a declaration that the petitioners herein are the legal heirs of late Mohd. Alauddin and have a right of inheritance in his properties. 20. Per contra, Sri Lakshmana Chary, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 7 strenuously contends that the official respondents are justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioners and that impugned order of the Tribunal is reasonable and benefit of infirmities and cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended by the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 7 that in view of Rule 25 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief from this Court and if any relief is granted in favour of the petitioners, it would be in the nature of encouraging multiple marriages by the Government employees. 21. The learned Government Pleader for Services has also advanced his arguments, supporting the order of the Tribunal. 22. 21. The learned Government Pleader for Services has also advanced his arguments, supporting the order of the Tribunal. 22. In the light of the above submissions and the rival contentions, now the questions which fall for consideration before this Court by way of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are whether the respondent authorities and the Tribunal are justified in dealing with the aspect of entitlement of the petitioners for family pension and other retirement benefits under Rule 25 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and whether the Tribunal and the respondent authorities are justified in not considering the effect of Rule 50(6)(a)(i) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 on the respective claims of the petitioners and unofficial respondents herein. 23. The Government of Andhra Pradesh framed the A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 in exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India to regulate the conduct of Government employees. The said rules deal with conduct, which the State Government employees should exhibit, should adhere to and should not violate during their course and tenure of employment. Rules 1 and 25 of the said Rules read as under: “Rule 1. Short title and application: (1) These rules may be called the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. (2) They shall apply to every person who is member of a civil service of the State or holds any civil post under the State or in connection with the affairs of the State: Provided that nothing in these rules shall apply to:- (a) the judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh: (b) the members of the All India Services; (c) persons who are not full-time employees but are engaged by Government to do certain work without prejudice to the regular practice by such persons of their professions in other respects, subject to the exception that rules 14,15,17,18 and 19 shall apply to the Advocate General, Government Pleaders, Public Prosecutors and Pleaders doing Government work; (d) the members of the village establishment; (e) persons paid from contingencies” “Rule 25. Bigamous marriages: (1) No Government employee who has a wife living shall contract another marriage without first obtaining the permission of the Government, notwithstanding that such subsequent marriage is permissible under the personal law for the time being applicable to him. Bigamous marriages: (1) No Government employee who has a wife living shall contract another marriage without first obtaining the permission of the Government, notwithstanding that such subsequent marriage is permissible under the personal law for the time being applicable to him. Provided that where the personal law provides for second or subsequent marriage, the Government employee shall, while seeking permission to contract another marriage, produce documentary evidence in support of “Divorce or Talaq” in respect of previous marriage and the manner in which the same was secured or pronounced and intimated to the first or former wife. (2) No female Government servant, whether unmarried or widow or divorced, as the case may be, shall marry any person who has a wife living without first obtaining the permission of the Government, though the parties are governed by the personal law which otherwise permits contracting more than one marriage while the prior marriage is subsisting”. 24. A perusal of the above said rules would make it manifest that violation and nonadherence to the said rules by the employees during the course and tenure of their employment authorises the employer to take disciplinary action against erring employees and the said rules by any stretch of imagination cannot be pressed into service for the purpose of dealing with the question of deciding the entitlement of the family members of the deceased employee to claim post-retirement benefits. 25. In the instant case, admittedly, the parties belong to Muslim Religion where more than one marriage is permissible. The respondent authorities rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the deceased employee contacted second marriage without the permission of the Government, thereby contravened Rule 25 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The said Conduct Rules have absolutely no role to play nor can be pressed into service for deciding the present entitlement after the death of an employee. Rule 1 of the A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 clearly and categorically and in unequivocal terms stipulates that the Conduct Rules shall apply to every person who is a member of Civil Service or holds any civil posts under the State or in connection with the affairs of the State. Rule 1 of the A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 clearly and categorically and in unequivocal terms stipulates that the Conduct Rules shall apply to every person who is a member of Civil Service or holds any civil posts under the State or in connection with the affairs of the State. The said rules can form the basis for initiating or taking disciplinary action against a Government servant during the lifetime of employee in the event of any misconduct, but cannot be a basis for denying the claim of the petitioners herein who are the dependants of the deceased employee and who are governed by Muslim Law. Therefore, the Tribunal also grossly erred in dismissing the O.A. by solely relying on Rule 25 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The Rules, which are germane for dealing with the present situation are the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 framed by Government of A.P. At this juncture, it is necessary and pertinent to refer to Rules 47, 49(1) & (2) and 50 (6) of the said Rules, which stipulate as follows: “47. Persons to whom gratuity is payable:- (1) (a) The gratuity payable under Rule 46 shall be paid to the person or persons on whom the right to receive the gratuity is conferred by means of nomination under Rule 49; (b) If there is no such nomination or if the nomination made does not subsist, the gratuity shall be paid in the manner indicated below:- (i) if there are one or more surviving members of the family, as in clauses (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of sub-rule (5) of Rule 46 to all such members in equal shares; (ii) if there are no such surviving members of the family as in subclause (i) above, but there are one or more members as in clauses (v), (vi), (viii), (ix), (x) and (xi) of sub-rule (5) of Rule 46 to all such members in equal shares. (2) If a Government servant dies after retirement without receiving the gratuity admissible under sub-rule (1) of Rule 46 the gratuity shall be disbursed to the family in the manner indicated in sub-rule (1). (2) If a Government servant dies after retirement without receiving the gratuity admissible under sub-rule (1) of Rule 46 the gratuity shall be disbursed to the family in the manner indicated in sub-rule (1). (3) The right of a female member of the family, or that of a brother, of a Government servant who dies while in service or after retirement, to receive the share of gratuity shall not be affected if the female member marries or re-marries, or the brother attains the age of eighteen years, after the death of Government servant and before receiving her or his share of the gratuity. (4) Where gratuity is granted under Rule 46 to a minor member of the family of the deceased Government servant, it shall be payable to the guardian on behalf of the minor. 49. Nominations:- (1) A Government servant, shall, on his appointment make a nomination in From 1 or Form 2, as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case, conferring on one or more persons the right to receive the retirement gratuity payable under Rule 47: Provided that if at the time of making the nomination- (i) the Government servant has a family, the nomination shall not be in favour of any person or persons other than the members of his family; or (ii) the Government servant has no family the nomination may be made in favour of a person or persons, or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. (2) If a Government servant nominates more than one person under sub-rule (1), he shall specify in the nomination the amount of share payable to each of the nominees in such manner as to cover the entire amount of gratuity. 50. Family pension: (1) …………………………………………. (2) …………………………………………. (3) …………………………………………. (4) …………………………………………. (5) …………………………………………. (6) (a) (i) Where the family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to the widows in equal shares. (ii) On the death of a widow, or remarriage her share of the family pension shall become payable to her eligible child. Provided that if the widow is not survived by any child, her share of the family pension shall cease to be payable. (ii) On the death of a widow, or remarriage her share of the family pension shall become payable to her eligible child. Provided that if the widow is not survived by any child, her share of the family pension shall cease to be payable. (b) Where the deceased Government servant or pensioner is survived by a widow but has left behind eligible child or children from another wife who is not alive, the eligible child or children shall be entitled to the share of family pension which the mother would have received if she had been alive at the time of the death of the Government servant or pensioner.” 26. Even though the applicants specifically pleaded before the Tribunal with regard to the applicability of Rule 50(6)(a)(i) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and their entitlement in the light of the said provisions, the Tribunal did not consider the claim of the petitioners herein in the light of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. In the instant case, the deceased employee, as evident from the material available on record and as stated by the official respondents, submitted declarations showing the names of petitioners 2 to 4 herein also as nominees. The authorities failed to take into consideration all these aspects and simply proceeded on the premise that Rule 25 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 prohibits second marriage and therefore the claim of petitioners cannot be considered. A perusal of the Circular Memo No.36840-A/329/A2/Pen.I/93 dated 11.9.1996 placed on record clearly reveals that the Government of India clarified that it would be for the State Government to consider any amendment to their Family Pension Rules and it is not brought to the notice of this Court that any such amendments have been made by the State Government to the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 to the said effect. Having noticed that more than one marriage is permissible under Muslim Personal Law, the Tribunal also erred in not answering the issue from that point of view. 27. In view of the above factual situation and the legal position, we are of the considered opinion that the orders impugned in the O.A. and the order passed by the Tribunal confirming the same cannot stand for judicial scrutiny and are liable to be set aside. 28. 27. In view of the above factual situation and the legal position, we are of the considered opinion that the orders impugned in the O.A. and the order passed by the Tribunal confirming the same cannot stand for judicial scrutiny and are liable to be set aside. 28. For the reasons recorded supra, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 13.8.2010 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.5984 of 2009 and the Letter No. AE(2)/1076/2006 dated 2.4.2009 and Letter No.AE(2)/1076/2006 dated 17.4.2009 issued by the Chief Accounts Officer, O/o the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and the matter is remitted back to the Respondent authorities for fresh consideration in the light of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 as mentioned above and in the light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs of this order and the principles laid down in the judgments referred to above. The respondent authorities are directed to pass orders afresh after enquiring into the matter in detail and by permitting the petitioners and the unofficial respondents herein to furnish the documents in support of their respective claims. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order and till the said exercise is completed and finalised the interim order granted by this Court on 10.6.2011 in W.P.M.P.No.18725 of 2011, staying the disbursement of the amounts shall continue. There shall be no order as to costs.