IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH SATURDAY THIS THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.1267 of 2014 Between:
Gaddam Venkatamma . PETITIONER And The A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Ltd., Hyderabad and eight others . RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.1267 of 2014
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in not sanctioning and paying the family pension to the petitioner and the action of the second respondent in issuing the Letter No.SE/OP/NLG/ADM/JAO(L)/CI/D.No.361/12, dated 20.03.2013, as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 21 of Constitution and contrary to the A.P .Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and consequently direct the second and third respondents to sanction and pay the family pension to the petitioner, without reference to the pendency of W.P.No.28986 of 2012.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.
The petitioner is the wife of the deceased employee by name Chandra Reddy. The deceased Chandra Reddy is the father-in-law of the 5th respondent, grandfather of the respondents 6 to 8 and father of the 9th respondent. The deceased Chandra Reddy who is the husband of the petitioner died on 09.02.2012 while in service. The petitioner made an application to the respondents 2 and 3 for sanctioning family pension and also the terminal benefits. The 5th respondent filed W.P.No.28986 of 2012 claiming the retrial death benefits of the deceased employee. In the said case, the learned single Judge of this Court passed an order not to disburse the retiral/death benefits, if not already disbursed. The petitioner claims that she is only entitled for family pension according to Revised Pension Rules and the respondents are not paying the family pension under the guise of the aforesaid interim order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court.
The respondents filed counter inter alia stating that though the petitioner is entitled to receive the family pension, in view of pendency of W.P.No.28986 of 2012 and as there is no direction to any of the respondents to pay the family pension to the petitioner, the same has not been paid to the petitioner. According to the Revised Pension Rules, when the wife is alive, she is only entitled for family pension.
The respondents 1 to 4 also admitted that the petitioner is entitled for family pension and they only stated that in view of the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.No.28986 of 2012, they have not paid the family pension to the petitioner.
Since the respondents 1 to 4 have not denied the petitioner’s entitlement for family pension, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 2 and 3 to pay the family pension to the petitioner in spite of the interim order passed in W.P.No.28986 of 2012 since the interim order only relates to the retiral/death benefits but not to the family pension, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this writ petition shall stand closed.
R.KANTHA RAO,J Date:18.10.2014 ccm THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.1267 of 2014
Date:18-10-2014