Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1352 (TS)

Voleti Madhavi Priya v. K. Varun Reddy

2025-10-30

T.MADHAVI DEVI

body2025
ORDER : T.Madhavi Devi, J. This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of the directions of this Court in W.P.No.26379 of 2021, dated 26.03.2024, by the respondents and is seeking punishment for the said disobedience under the Contempt of Courts Act and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice. 2. The petitioner had challenged the proceedings dated 31.01.2020 rejecting her claim of compassionate appointment and this Court had directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of family pension provided she fulfills other eligibility criteria. Against the order of this Court, the respondents filed Writ Appeal No.925 of 2024 and the Division Bench of this Court, after considering the rejection order dated 31.01.2020, observed that the appellants therein have not examined the case of the respondent No.1 therein as to whether she was totally dependent on the deceased pensioner, consequent upon the death of her husband and that the rejection order is a cryptic order and no reasons were assigned as to why the family pension is being denied to the respondent No.1 and the Division Bench therefore was not inclined to interfere with the order passed by this Court and the Writ Appeal was accordingly dismissed. 3. However, the respondents failed to comply with the directions of this Court and reconsider the case of the petitioner and therefore, this Contempt Case has been filed. 4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2, stating that consequent to the directions of this Court, he has examined as to whether the petitioner was totally dependent or not on her mother and has passed speaking orders dated 24.01.2025 and therefore, complied with the directions of this Court. It is stated that the petitioner was not dependent on the pensioner, Sri Goverdhanam Venkataramana Charyulu, the father of the petitioner at the time of his death i.e., on 12.05.2012 and after the death of the pensioner, the family pension was granted to the wife of the deceased employee/pensioner and that at the time of grant of family pension to the mother of the petitioner also, the petitioner was not dependent. It is stated that the widowed daughter or unmarried daughter would become eligible for family pension only when the spouse i.e., the wife of the pensioner, is not alive at the time of his death. Therefore, the respondents have relied upon Rule 50 of the Pension Rules, which was duly amended vide G.O.Ms.No.315, dated 07.10.2010, in support of their contentions that “the widowed/divorced daughter would be eligible for the family pension, provided the spouse predeceases the pensioner and sons/daughters referred to in category-I become ineligible for the family pension.” 5. It is further stated that Rule 54 of the Rules provides that it is open to the Government to dispense with or relax the requirements by recording the reasons in writing and subject to the exceptions and conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. It is stated that the petitioner’s father was Junior Accounts Officer of TSNPDCL when he retired from service on 31.03.2004 on attaining the age of superannuation and thereafter, he was sanctioned with service pension and after his death on 12.05.2012, his wife Smt.Goverdhanam Lakshmi Thayaru became the family pensioner and on 30.07.2016, she also passed away. It is submitted that the petitioner’s husband passed away in a road accident on 17.07.2015 and she became dependent on the family pensioner only thereafter. The respondents thus supported the rejection order and submitted that there is no disobedience of the orders of this Court. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents also relied upon the order of this Court in W.P.No.33 of 2023, dated 14.02.2025, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has considered the similar circumstances and has held as under: Para-6: On perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner’s father, who worked as an Office Superintendent in respondent No.1/office, passed away on 04.05.1986. Thereafter, the petitioner’s elder brother was appointed as a Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds and family pension was sanctioned to the petitioner’s mother. The petitioner’s husband passed away on 05.09.2007. Thereby, the petitioner and her children became dependent on her mother. However, the petitioner’s mother passed away on 26.03.2021. Subsequently, the petitioner made an application to respondent No.1 on 24.02.2022 requesting to grant and release of family pension. However, the respondents rejected her request vide impugned memo, dated 23.08.2022. The petitioner’s husband passed away on 05.09.2007. Thereby, the petitioner and her children became dependent on her mother. However, the petitioner’s mother passed away on 26.03.2021. Subsequently, the petitioner made an application to respondent No.1 on 24.02.2022 requesting to grant and release of family pension. However, the respondents rejected her request vide impugned memo, dated 23.08.2022. Para-7: According to Category-I of G.O.Ms.No.315, dated 07.10.2010, son/daughter (including widowed daughter) is eligible for pension upto the date of his/her marriage/remarriage or till the date he/she starts earning or till the age of 25 years, whichever is earlier. As per the aforesaid G.O., a widowed or divorced daughter is eligible for family pension if she was wholly dependent on the pensioner at the time of his/her death. Para-8: In the present case, although the petitioner was dependent on her father at the time of his demise, she got married subsequently. Further, the petitioner’s claim is not valid under G.O.Ms.No.315, dated 07.10.2010, as it specifies that family pension is granted only to a widowed daughter, who was dependent on the pensioner before his/her death. Further, the petitioner got married after the demise of her father and she became a widow in 2007, long after her father’s death in 1986. Therefore, the petitioner does not meet the eligibility requirements for family pension under G.O.Ms.No.315, dated 07.10.2010. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the rejection of her claim by respondent No.1 is in accordance with the provisions of this G.O. Para-9: Further, the Circular Memo, dated 19.07.2022, specifies that family pension is only granted to a widowed or divorced daughter if her spouse’s death or divorce occurred before the pensioner’s death. In the instant case, the petitioner’s husband passed away in 2007, after her father’s death in 1986, making her ineligible under this Rule. Additionally, Rule 50 of the Telangana Revised Pension Rules, 1980, states that family pension is only payable to a widowed daughter who was dependent on the pensioner before his death. Since the petitioner got married after her father’s demise, she was not a dependent and is therefore ineligible. Furthermore, the petitioner’s application for family pension was made in February 2022, whereas the relevant circular, dated 19.07.2022, was issued subsequently. Since the petitioner got married after her father’s demise, she was not a dependent and is therefore ineligible. Furthermore, the petitioner’s application for family pension was made in February 2022, whereas the relevant circular, dated 19.07.2022, was issued subsequently. As the provisions of the circular were not in effect at the time of the petitioner’s application and also given that the petitioner does not meet the specific eligibility criteria outlined therein, the circular would not have a bearing on the outcome of the present case. Therefore, it can be inferred that the rejection of the petitioner’s request for family pension is in accordance with the applicable Rules and guidelines. Para-10: In view of the above made discussion, this Court is of the view that there are no merits in the Writ Petition. Therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. He therefore, prayed that the Contempt Case be closed. 7. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner, however, submitted that the case of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondents in spite of specific directions of this Court. 8. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that on the earlier occasion, the case of the petitioner was not considered for family pension solely on the ground that she is a married daughter of the deceased employee. In view thereof, this Court had directed the respondents to consider her case for family pension, provided she fulfills other eligibility criteria. The respondents have now examined her case and have observed that she does not fulfill the other conditions of dependency on the pensioner at the time of his death and have passed the rejection orders dated 24.01.2025. This Court is therefore of the opinion that the petitioner, if aggrieved by the said order, has to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings and there is no disobedience of the directions of this Court. 9. The Contempt Case is accordingly closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.