Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1249 (AP)

Y Sakuthalamma v. Government Of Andhra Pradesh

2024-08-30

K MANMADHA RAO

body2024
ORDER : K Manmadha Rao, J. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “….to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the inaction of the Respondents not granting Family Pension to the Petitioner after demise of her husband Sri Y Narasimhulu Foreman Driver in APSPDCL though the Petitioner was shown as nominee in the service register, is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Rule 50 of A P Revised Pension Rules 1980 contrary to G.O.Ms.No.353 Finance PSC Department, dated 04.12.2010 and contrary to the Art 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent to grant Family Pension to the Petitioner forth with and pass…” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that her husband by name Srl. Y. Narasimhulu was expired on 21-06-2019 leaving the Petitioner as widow. During his life time he worked as a Foreman, Driver In earnest while APSEB. Later, her husband was retired from the service on attaining the age of Superannuation on 30-06-2007. It is stated that the husband of the Petitioner shown the Petitioner as a nominee and also submitted declaration form as per nomination Rules. It is stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued an Order vide G.O.Ms.No. 353 Finance (PSC) Department, dated 04-02-2012, framed procedure for claiming Family Pension after demise of spouse. The Respondent No. 2 Company adopted the Government Order vide Orders EOO (HRD) Ms.No.112, dated 30-04-2011. As per the Government Oders as well as Rule 50 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, the nominee of the employee made in declaration form is entitled family pension, inspite of the same, the respondent has not issued any family pension to the petitioner till date. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The Counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent. While denying all the allegations made in the petition, inter alia contended that, the husband of the petitioner i.e., Y.Narasimhulu was joined in Electricity Department as Driver on 05-07-1968 and he retired on 30-05-2019 on attaining the age of superannuation and expired on 21-06-2019. As per the Service Register, the deceased Y.Narasimhulu nominated the Writ petitioner's name as a wife. While denying all the allegations made in the petition, inter alia contended that, the husband of the petitioner i.e., Y.Narasimhulu was joined in Electricity Department as Driver on 05-07-1968 and he retired on 30-05-2019 on attaining the age of superannuation and expired on 21-06-2019. As per the Service Register, the deceased Y.Narasimhulu nominated the Writ petitioner's name as a wife. It is further stated that, after the death of Y.Narasimhulu, one N. Chandravathi and Writ Petitioner requested APSPDCL authorities to sanction pension as the wife of the deceased. On considering their request, APSPDCL directed them to approach the competent court to declare their legal status. Further, it is submitted that as per the direction of APSPDCL, N.Chandravathi filed a Writ petition in WP.No.1575/2020 in the High Court of A.P. to declare the inaction of the APSPDCL not granting family pension to her in spite of the representation is illegal and on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble High Court was disposed of the said Writ petition and directed APSPDCL authorities to consider the representation and pass necessary orders in accordance with the law or 28-01-2020. In due obedience to the orders of the Hon'ble High court, authorities of APSPDCL addressed a letter No.701/2020 Dt: 12-03-2020 to said N.Chandravathi to produce documents i.e. Aadhar card, Pan card, 3 Nos. passport size photos, family member certificate, etc., for taking necessary action. The same was received by her, but part of the documents was submitted. Hence, again, the authorities addressed a letter Dt:8-12-2020 to the said Chandravathi requested to produce the documents. But, so far she did not furnish the same. It is further stated that in Writ Petition No.1575/2020 N.Chandravathi does not add Sakunthalamma (who is the present Writ Petitioner) as a party. At the time, in the present Writ Petition, Y.Sakunthalamma also does not add Chandravathi as a party. In view of the above, N.Chandravathi is a proper for adjudication of the dispute between both parties. Hence, nonimpleading necessary party, the petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. In view of the above, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and hence prayed to dismiss the same. 4. Heard Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri and Ms. M.Sujatha, learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 5. Hence, nonimpleading necessary party, the petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. In view of the above, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and hence prayed to dismiss the same. 4. Heard Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri and Ms. M.Sujatha, learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition, submits that, as per Rule position Rule 50 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules and G.O.Ms.No.353 the petitioner alone entitled for granting Family pension the respondents have no role to interfere in Family affairs to direct them to settle the Family dispute, then they will grant family pension. He further submits that the respondents in deviation to the Rule position not granting family pension at tender age of the petitioner, the action of the respondents in not granting family pension to the petitioner is highly illegal and arbitrary. 6. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court reported in Gaddam Ruth Victoria versus State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary and others 2023 SCC OnLine AP 1690, wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that : “…Consequently, even if there was no permission for 2nd marriage, the 5th respondent cannot be denied family pension because of Circular, provision Rule 50(12) when she had been nominated by the deceased Gaddam Danam..” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying on the above decision, requested to pass appropriate orders. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents while reiterating the contents made in the counter submits that in WP No.1575 of 2020, N. Chandravathi does not add the present writ petitioner as a party and at the same time, the petitioner herein also does not add N. Chandravathi as a party. In view of the above, N. Chandravathi is a proper party for adjudication of the dispute between both parties. Therefore, as there are no merits in the present writ prayed to dismiss the same. 9. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said N. Chandravathi was impleaded as respondent No.5 in the present writ petition by this Court vide order dated 3.3.2021 in I.A No.1 of 2021. Therefore, as there are no merits in the present writ prayed to dismiss the same. 9. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said N. Chandravathi was impleaded as respondent No.5 in the present writ petition by this Court vide order dated 3.3.2021 in I.A No.1 of 2021. But as per Service Register of the petitioner’s husband, the petitioner herein was shown as a Nominee and also submitted declaration form as per nomination rules. Therefore, the petitioner herein is entitled for family pension. 10. On perusing the material on record, this Court observed that, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner’s husband Y. Narasimhulu was expired on 21.06.2019 leaving the petitioner as widow. During his life time the petitioner’s husband was worked as a Foreman, Driver in earnest while APSEB, after establishment of respondent No.2 corporation, the husband of the petitioner rendered his service and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2007. It is also an admitted fact that the husband of the petitioner shown the petitioner herein as a nominee and also submitted declaration form as per nomination rules. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on hearing the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that, in the present case, the dispute is in between the petitioner and one Chandravathi, who is impleaded as respondent No.5, with regard to declaration of wife. Therefore both the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 have to approach the civil Court to decide their dispute with regard to the declaration of the wife and that the same shall be decided by the trial Court only but not before this Court. Further, as far as family pension is concerned, if the issue with regard to the wife of the deceased is declared once, it shall be released by the competent authority after verifying all the documents. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is inclined to dismiss the present writ petition, as the issue in this case will be decided by the competent civil court only. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner as well as to the respondent No.5 to agitate their dispute before the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner as well as to the respondent No.5 to agitate their dispute before the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.