IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.9908 of 2010 Between: Smt.M.Padmavathi … Petitioner And The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, T.T.D. Administrative Building, K.T. Road, Tirupathi. … Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.9908 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not sanctioning the family pension to the petitioner, after the death of her husband, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondent to sanction the family pension to the petitioner forthwith. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s husband has worked in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams and retired from service as Superintendent in the month of February, 2004 and died on 08.07.2009. Thereafter, she made an application to the respondent requesting for providing family pension. But the respondent did not consider her request saying that her husband submitted an affidavit, while submitting the pension papers, that as she was not willing to cooperate in filling the pension forms for entitlement of pension benefits and therefore, she is not entitled to any pensionary benefits, therefore, the matter was referred to the Devasthanam Law Officer vide letter dated 11.08.2009. Thereafter, the Devasthanam Law Officer given his opinion on 12.09.2009 observing that the affidavit of her husband holds good and he further opined that she may be informed to obtain appropriate orders from any competent Court of law to get family pension. Thereafter, the file has been transmitted to the Accounts Officer-I, T.T.D., Tirupathi. Hence, she filed the present writ petition. On behalf of the respondent, counter/vacate petition has been filed stating that admittedly the husband of the petitioner worked in the respondent’s devasthanam and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 29.02.2004 and settled the pensionery benefits as per the rules. The name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the pension papers by the deceased employee to receive the family pension after his death and during the life time of the husband of the petitioner, submitted a notary affidavit stating that the petitioner is not entitled to receive pension benefits after his death. Therefore, the request of the petitioner for sanctioning the family pension has not been considered but advised to obtain appropriate order from the competent Court of law. It is also submitted that the name of the petitioner was nominated by the deceased to receive all the benefits such as GIS, WF., GPF., Gratuity and DCRG. Further, the husband of the petitioner has not nominated the petitioner in respect of pension at the time of settlement. Eventually, it is submitted that the respondent has no intention to withheld the pensionary benefits of the petitioner in any manner but on account of the notary affidavit, submitted by the deceased, the family pension has not been sanctioned to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Nadhamuni Reddy and they live jointly in the same roof along with their children. It is also submitted that there might be some family problems in their family, which is very common in every family. He further submitted that while her husband alive, gave her name as nominee for receiving the Group Insurance amount, for receiving the G.P.F. amount and for receiving the life time arrears of pension, gratuity, commuted value of pension and death relief in the event of his death. He has also given her name as nominee for receiving the E.W.F. amount bearing No.2535. The list of family members, which was given by her husband also shows that her name is at Sl.No.2, after her husband’s mother. It is also submitted that there is no other claimant for the same benefit, which she is seeking from the respondent. Therefore, she is fully eligible and entitled to receive family pension after the death of her husband as legally wedded wife. He further submitted that this Court on 23.06.2010, while admitting the writ petition passed interim direction to the respondent to sanction the family pension to the petitioner forthwith. As the respondent did not comply with the said order, the petitioner stated to have filed contempt case. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record. From a perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner worked in the respondent’s devasthanam and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and later on expired. Thereafter, when the petitioner approached the respondent authorities for sanctioning the family pension, she came to know that her husband submitted an affidavit that she is not entitled to any family pension benefits. Hence, her request for sanctioning the family pension has been rejected but advised to get appropriate order from the competent Court of law. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. The affidavit, stated to have been filed by the husband of the petitioner, reads as under: “I, M. Nadhamuni Reddy, S/o M.Krishna Reddy, Hindu, aged about 58 years, Working as Superintendent, O/o UDS, TTD., Tirumala, and residing at D.No.254, Doddapuram Street, Tirupati, Chittoor District, do hereby sooemnly affirm and state as follows:- 1. I state that I am permanent employee of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, my dte of Retirement will be February, 2004. I have mentioned in my pension forms that my wife is M.Padmavathi, aged about 50 years. But, due to some domestic problems she is residing separately and independently by doing business independently in my own house at D.No.110, T.K.Street, Tirupati, and not willing to cooperate in filling the pension forms as she is entitled to pension benefits after my death. So, my wife M.Padmavathi now is not entitled in the pension benefits and other benefits which I am entitled to receive in the February, 2004 at my retirement date. So, I am not mentioning my wife’s name in the pension forms for the family pension benefits. 2. I declare that the above stated facts all are true and correct, so pension papers sent by me without mentioning my wife’s name in the said columns of pension papers may be treated as full pension papers for settlement of my retirement benefits and pension benefits.” From the above affidavit, it is evident that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee and the contents of the said affidavit is that the petitioner is not entitled to the pensionary benefits, after death of her husband. The authorities also have not mentioned in the counter affidavit as to what is the reason for not granting the family pension to the petitioner except stating that during the life time of her late husband, he filed an affidavit that the petitioner is not entitled to any pensionary benefits and her name is not shown in the pension papers. Therefore, it is stated that unless and until the petitioner is able to produce any order from the competent authority to pay the pension, she will not be paid. As could be seen for the material made available on record, the late husband of the petitioner has not mentioned any legally sustainable ground, which makes the petitioner to disentitle to receive the family pension. Admittedly, the petitioner is the legally wedded wife and she was blessed with five children through her deceased husband. In view of the fact that this Court on 23.06.2010 passed interim direction to the respondent to sanction the family pension to the petitioner forthwith and the deceased husband of the petitioner did not mention any sustainable ground in the affidavit, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of making the interim order as the final order. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel, the interim order dated 23.06.2010 passed in W.P.M.P. No.12754 of 2010 directing the respondent to sanction the family pension to the petitioner forthwith is made as final order. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to release the pension to the petitioner forthwith, in accordance with law, 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. _________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 31.10.2011 LSK