IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9037 of 2008 Between: Jangala Meeramma W/o. Late Jangala Purushotham R/o. Putrelu Post, Visannapet Mandal, Krishna Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.Transco, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Hyd. 2 The Divisional Electrical Engineer/ Operation Rural, A.P.Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Vijayawada, Krishna Dist. 3 The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Officer, 3rd Lane, Krishna Nagar, Guntur- 522 006. .....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 issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the representation submitted by the petitioner on 30-7-2005 requesting them to consider the case of the petitioner for sanction of the Family Pension of the late husband of the petitioner Sri Jangala Purushotham who died on 6-11-1981 while in Service, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against to the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for sanction of Family pension to the petitioner and to grant such other relief or relief. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.PARAMESEWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: Mr.P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: MR.R.N.REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: The husband of the petitioner was employed as Store Keeper in the erstwhile A.P. State Electricity Board. He is said to have died on 06.11.1981. After more than two decades, the petitioner approached the second respondent, with a request to extend the benefit of family pension. He, in turn, took up the matter with the third respondent. The latter issued proceedings, dated 03.03.2005, informing the second respondent that the husband of the petitioner was not a member of Provident Fund Organization; no deductions were made under the relevant provisions and no contribution was made by the employer, from the years 1971-72 to 1981-82. On that ground, he expressed his inability to accede to the request of the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have made a representation, dated 30.07.2005, to the respondents. She claims that no action has been taken thereon. Hence, she seeks appropriate directions, in this regard. Heard Sri B.Parameswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri R.N.Reddy, learned counsel for the third respondent. The husband of the petitioner died more than two and half decades ago. The organization in which he was employed is no more in existence. The first respondent is only a Company, which is undertaking part of the activities of erstwhile A.P. Electricity Board. Notwithstanding these factors, the second respondent had initiated steps on the application made by the petitioner and addressed a letter to the third respondent. After verification of the records, the third respondent informed that the husband of the petitioner was not a member of Provident Fund Organization; neither any contributions, nor any deductions were effected, and accordingly, rejected the case. Therefore, it emerges that the claim of the petitioner was examined and found untenable. Under these circumstances, the question of directing the respondents to examine the representation made by the petitioner on 30.07.2005, does not arise. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.24.04.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}