IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 10684 of 2008 Between: Smt. Alur Padmavati W/o late Shri Alur Srinivasa Char, R/o Flat No. 101, Block-B, Padmini Apartments, 1-10-49/50, Street No.3 Chikote Gardens Begumpet Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal Secretary TR & B Department, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The State Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its (Revenue Department) rep by its Tahsildar Uppal Mandal, Office of the Tahsildar, Uppal mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 3 Ch. Madhavi Devi W/o Late Shri, Alur Nagendra Prasad R/o H. No. 5-12-182/4/3, Plot No. 203/A, Mangapuram BH Colony, Meerpet Village, uppal mandal, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 issue an order or direction moreparticularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent issuing the familyMember Certiﬁcate dated 19-3-2008 indicating third respondent is the sole successor in interest and /legal heir is illegal unenforceable and contraryto the Class I herein Under First Schedule section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and consequently direct the ﬁrs respondent not to act upon the said certiﬁcate or basing upon anyother departmental rule/regulation or procedure adopted bythem to disburse the terminal/Monetary beneﬁts lying in the credit of late Sri. Alur Nagendra prasad, Assistant Section Officer TR & B Department Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Hyderabad and direct them to issue to the said amounts to the petitioner and third respondnt equally ie., half share each and pass suchorder or orders as this Honourable Court deems ﬁt and proper inthe circumstances of the case and inthe interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.G.SUDHA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.10684 OF 2008 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner states that her son, namely Alur Nagendra Prasad while serving the State Government in TR&B Department as Section Oﬃcer, died on 12.02.2008 due to cancer. That he was married to the 3rd respondent, namely Ch.Madhavi Deviand, who is working as Divisional Engineer in Telephone Department, Bharath Sanchar Nigarm Limited. She states that his son had no children. That his son during his life time, used to look after her as well as her unmarried daughter. After the death of her son, the petitioner states that the 3rd respondent came to her house on 22.02.2008, and obtained her signatures on blank papers on the premise that she is submitting application to the 2nd respondent, namely the Tahsildar, Uppal Mandal, for issuance of Succession Certiﬁcate. The petitioner states that she came to know that the 3rd respondent had obtained Family Member Certiﬁcate dated 19.03.2008 from the 2nd respondent, certifying to the eﬀect that she is the sole legal heir of her late husband, which is contrary to the Hindu Succession Act, and basing on the said Family Member Certiﬁcate, the 3rd respondent submitted an application to the 1st respondent, namely the Principal Secretary, TR&B Department, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Hyderabad, claiming the monetary beneﬁts of her deceased son. The petitioner states that when she made enquiries in the oﬃce of the 1st respondent, she was informed that on the strength of the Family Member Certiﬁcate dated 19.03.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent, the request of the 3rd respondent for payment of monetary beneﬁts, is under consideration. Aggrieved by the said action of the 1st respondent, the petitioner ﬁled the present writ petition seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to disburse the death beneﬁts of her late son, equally in her favour as well as the 3rd respondent. When the matter came up for admission before this Court on 07.05.2008, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport, Roads and Buildings, took notice on behalf of the 1 st respondent, while the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue took notice for the 2nd respondent, and while ordering notice to the 3rd respondent, this Court granted interim directions directing the 1st respondent not to disburse the terminal/monetary beneﬁts of her late son to the 3rd respondent, pending further orders. The 3rd respondent filed counter inter alia stating that as per Rule 50(12)(b) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, the expression “family in relation to a Government Servant” means wife or husband and minor children of the deceased employee, and they alone are entitled for the pensionary beneﬁts of the deceased government servant and, therefore, the 3rd respondent, who is the wife of the government employee and his legal heir, alone is entitled to the pensionary benefits. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport, Roads and Buildings for the 1st respondent, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the 2nd respondent and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, and perused the material placed before the Court. The Family Member Certiﬁcate dated 19.03.2008, issued by the 2nd respondent shows that it has been issued for the purpose of “pensionary beneﬁts” of the services of the deceased government servant. Basing on this certiﬁcate, it is the case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent, is processing the application submitted by the 3rd respondent for payment of pensionary beneﬁts of her late husband to her, and that she being the natural mother, is also entitled to share of the terminal beneﬁts of her deceased son. While it is the case of the 3rd respondent that having regard to the provisions of Rule 50(12) (b) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, the 3 rd respondent being the legal heir of the deceased employee, alone is entitled to receive the pensionary benefits of her late husband. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent have taken the above stand, but they agreed for disposal of the writ petition clarifying to the following eﬀect that the 3rd respondent on the strength of the Family Member Certiﬁcate, except claiming the family pension, is not entitled to claim monetary beneﬁts payable to the deceased government employee to her exclusive beneﬁt, but the petitioner is also entitled to claim a share in the said monetary benefits payable to the deceased government employee, which has to be decided in accordance with the law and the relevant Rules governing thereof. Having regard to the above stand taken by both the counsel, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The Family Member Certiﬁcate dated 19.03.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, is applicable only to the extent of payment of pension to the 3rd respondent, and the said certiﬁcate shall not be made applicable to the claim of other monetary beneﬁts, payable to the deceased government employee. In what ratio the petitioner and the 3rd respondent are entitled to the monetary beneﬁts payable to the deceased government employee, has to be considered and decided by the 1st respondent, as per law and the relevant Rules governing thereof. Based on the decision, the 1st respondent shall release the monetary benefits, to the extent the petitioner and the 3rd respondent are eligible. With the above clariﬁcation, the writ petition is closed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J. Date: 08.07.2008 VGSR