IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 4339 of 1999 Between: Smt. Singampally Anasuya W/o late Godavari Ardhavaram (V) Ganapavaram (M), West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C. rep. by Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad 2 Accounts Officer (FPS), A.P.S.R.T.C., Mushirabad, Hyderabad 3 Depot Manager, APSRTC, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to declaring the action of the respondents for not settling the family pension and pensionary beneﬁts under the F.P.Scheme with all consequential and monetary beneﬁts and also directing the respondents 1 & 2 to pay interest @18% p.a. for non-settlement of the family pension in favour of the petitioner herein by keeping the same for more than a decade in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Issue an order or orders or directions particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.M.V.RAJA RAAM Counsel for the Respondents : MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 4339 of 1999 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus, to declare the action of respondents in not settling the family pension and consequential beneﬁts payable to the petitioner on account of the services rendered by her husband, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to direct the respondents to pay family pension to her with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the husband of the petitioner, by name, Sri Singampally Godavari, who was working as a Lower Division Clerk in the respondent-Corporation, had died on 03.10.1989 while in service. It is the case of the petitioner that all the beneﬁts that accrued on account of the services rendered by her late husband, were paid to her, except the family pension. It is further stated by the petitioner that her late husband was covered by the Family Pension Scheme of the Corporation and that deductions were also made from the salary of her late husband, towards such scheme. She contends that as she was the nominee of her late husband, there is no reason for not extending the benefit of family pension to her. 3. Counter aﬃdavit and additional counter aﬃdavit are ﬁled on behalf of the respondents. In the counter ﬁled on 12.09.2008 by the Accounts Oﬃcer (FPS) of the respondent-Corporation, it is stated that the late husband of the petitioner was initially appointed as a Driver in the respondent-Corporation on 17.11.1968, and became a member of the Provident Fund Scheme with eﬀect from 17.11.1969. It is stated that the Family Pension Scheme was introduced by Government of India under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Act, 1952, with eﬀect from 01.03.1971, and all the employees who were members of the Provident Fund Scheme as on 28.02.1971, were asked to exercise their option in Form No.1 to become members of the said Family Pension Scheme. It is categorically stated in the counter aﬃdavit that the late husband of the petitioner did not opt to become member of the said scheme, and continued as a member of the Provident Fund Scheme. 4. With regard to the allegation of petitioner about deduction on account of Family Pension Scheme, it is explained in para 4 of the counter that an amount of Rs.962.50 ps., was erroneously recovered from the deceased employee for the period from 01.03.1980 to 28.02.1987, and on noticing the said mistake, the said amount was credited to the Provident Fund account of the deceased employee along with the employer’s contribution of Rs.962.50 ps. in the year 1986-87. The said fact is evident from the adjustment entries made in the Provident Fund Register. It is further stated that the said amount, which was lying to the credit of the Provident Fund Account of the deceased employee, was paid to his nominees. 5. From the counter aﬃdavit, it is clear that the late husband of the petitioner did not opt for the Family Pension Scheme, 1971, but continued to be a member of the Provident Fund Scheme. It is also clear from the counter aﬃdavit that though an amount of Rs.962.50 ps. was erroneously deducted from the salary of the deceased employee towards the Family Pension Scheme, but after detecting such mistake, the said amount, along with the employer’s contribution, was adjusted and credited to his Provident Fund account. Asmuch as the nominees of the deceased employee were already paid the entire service beneﬁts of the late husband of the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any beneﬁt under the Family Pension Scheme, as her late husband did not opt for such scheme. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 18th September 2008 cvrk/ajr To 1 The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C.,Mushirabad, Hyderabad 2 The Accounts Officer (FPS), A.P.S.R.T.C., Mushirabad, Hyderabad 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District.