Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1328 (AP)

V. Satyanarayna Murthy v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2024-09-20

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2024
ORDER : (K. Manmadha Rao, J.) : The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief : “…..to issue issue a writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd and 4th respondents in all implement the Orders dt 20.07.2018 IN P.A.No.1106/2018 inspite of the 3rd respondent issued the in Rc No 3132/A2/2018, dt 21.08.2018, as illegal, arnitrary, violation of article 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to include the name of the petitioner wife i.e. Smt. Sudhistnamma in the pension proposals Application of Family member Column and to forward the same to the 5th respondent by taking into consideration of the in RC No 3132/A2/2018, dt21.08.2018 and pass…….” 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner had working as a Junior Assistant in the 4threspondent school and he was retired from service on 30.11.2011. The petitioner’s wife name was not included in the pension form by the 4th respondent, who in turn, forwarded the same to the 5th respondent. The petitioner’s 2nd wife, namely, Sudhistnamma has sent her name and her 3 children names for including in the pension proposals, but the 4th respondent has neither included their names nor forwarded to 5th respondent. The 5th respondent withhold the retirement pension of the petitioner in pursuance of the interim orders passed by the competent civil court. Subsequently the civil court settled both families. In pursuance of the same, the 1st wife have got some retiremental benefits upto 40% then orally settled. Now, at present, the 2nd wife name in pension proposal was sent, but the 4th respondent without sending it to the 5th respondent, is highly illegal and arbitrary. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner has approached the Hon’ble tribunal and filed O.?.??.2518/2012 seeking a direction to the head master to forward his pension papers to the Accountant General. The Hon’ble tribunal, vide order dated 03.04.2012 has directed the respondents to arrange for payment of retiremental benefits to the petitioners within a period of eight (8) weeks. In spite of that the respondents have not taken any steps. The Hon’ble tribunal, vide order dated 03.04.2012 has directed the respondents to arrange for payment of retiremental benefits to the petitioners within a period of eight (8) weeks. In spite of that the respondents have not taken any steps. Accordingly, the petitioners again approached the Hon’ble tribunal by way of filing O.A.No.9712/2012 declaring the action of the respondents in not settling the pensionary benefits in spite of the fact that he was retired form service on 30-11-2011. Thereafter, the Hon’ble tribunal has passed interim orders directing the respondents to forward the pension proposals of the petitioner without any further delay to the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.1 is directed to process them as expeditiously as possible and conclude the whole exercise within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The petitioner filed another O.A.No.1106/2018 on 20-07-2018. Though the 3rd respondent issued proceedings vide Rc.No.3132/A2/2018 dated 21.08.2018 instructed to take immediate action on the orders of Hon’ble APAT dated 20.07.2018 in OA No.1106/2018 to strictly as per rules and to avoid further legal complications in the matter and report compliance, but the respondents have not taken any action. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying all the allegations made in the petition. It is further stated that, in response to the instructions issued by the Hon'ble APAT/Government/Commissioner of School Education/DEO, Pension proposals duly including the name of the applicants wife namely Smt. Sudhistnamma in the Pension proposals application of Family Member Column and forwarded the same to the 5th respondent i.e., the Accountant General, AP, Hyderabad. It is further stated that, the 5threspondent i.e., the Accountant General, AP, Hyderabad at Amaravathi vide PAG (A&E)/AP/PII/II/S3601/SP- 977/2013/01/278104, Dt 21.01.2019 duly marking a copy to the petitioner and Headmaster, GHS Pathapatnam has requested to submit the below mentioned copies to take further course of action. a. Divorce deed with 1 wife Smt. Y.Mangamma b. Marriage Certificate of Smt. Y.Sudheesnamma c. Sanctioning family pension signed by Pension Sanctioning Authority. Further, It is submitted that, the Orders of Hon'ble APAT, Hyderabad to consider representation of the applicant, dated 16.02.2017 regarding inclusion of name of the applicants wife as nominee by forwarding the proposals to the Accountant General AP, Amaravathi was implemented. Further, It is submitted that, the Orders of Hon'ble APAT, Hyderabad to consider representation of the applicant, dated 16.02.2017 regarding inclusion of name of the applicants wife as nominee by forwarding the proposals to the Accountant General AP, Amaravathi was implemented. In due course the Accountant General AP, Amaravathi has requested to submit certain documents which are mandatory to ascertain the eligibility and inclusion of the 2nd wife name in pension sanctioning order and the said documents have not been submitted by the petitioner to this office to submit the same to the 5th respondent, Accountant General AP Amaravathi. In view of the above, It is stated that, the orders of OA No. 1106/2018 was already implemented by this office by forwarding the pension proposals immediately on 25.08.2018 and the petitioner has not submitted the mandatory required certificates a. Divorce deed with 1" wife SmtY.Mangamma b. Marriage Certificate of Smt. Y.Sudheesnamma to the 5th respondent i.e., Accountant General, AP, till today, due to which, the revised proposals was not settled and the part of undue delay to submit the certificates was on part of the Petitioner only. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Sri M. Krishna Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms.P.Sudeepthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader and Smt K. Swarna Seshu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition, contended that, though 3rd respondent vide its proceedings dated 21.08.2018 has instructed the Head Master, Govt. High School, Pathapatnam to take immediate action on the orders of APAT dated 20.07.2018 passed in OA No.1106/2018 to strictly as per rules and to avoid further legal complications in the matter and report compliance, the 3rd and 4th respondents have not taken any steps in this regard. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 6. Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the respondents while reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, opposed for allowing the writ petition and further contended that the petitioner may make a fresh representation before the respondent authorities along with requisite documents and that the respondent authorities shall consider the same and shall take action in accordance with law. 7. Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the respondents while reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, opposed for allowing the writ petition and further contended that the petitioner may make a fresh representation before the respondent authorities along with requisite documents and that the respondent authorities shall consider the same and shall take action in accordance with law. 7. Considering the submission of both the learned cousins, as stated by learned Assistant Government Pleader that it is mandatory to fulfill the requisite required documents, the petitioner is at liberty to submit a fresh representation along with requisite documents. On such receipt of the same, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the same and take necessary action, as expeditiously, as possible. 8. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.