IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 20040 of 2004 Between: Smt. Sakeena Begum W/o late Mohd. Haneef, R/o Kardigudda Raod, Post Manvi 584123 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Finance and Planning Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Accountant, Accountant General of Andhra PRadesh, Opp Telephone Exchange Near Secrtariat Buildings Hyderabad .....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 declare the in action of the respondents in not according the pensions and family pension to the petitioner and declare the same as ultravires the provisions of pensions rules by issuance of a Writ, Direction or order, particularly one in the nature of Mandamus and consequently direct the respondents herein to release the pension due to the petitioner further direct to comply the court orders in earlier writ Petition No. 8505/92 ﬁx and release the arrears to the petitioner due to her late husband and also ﬁx the family pension to her as per rules and regulation by processing the pension papers forthwith Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.ABBURI PRASANNA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled seeking a direction to the respondents, by way of issuing a Writ of Mandamus, to comply with the orders made in W.P. No.8505 of 1992 and to calculate, ﬁx and release the pension and arrears due to the petitioner’s late husband till his death and subsequently release family pension to her in accordance with prevailing rules. The tenor of the contents of the present writ petition is that petitioner’s husband earlier ﬁled a W.P. No.8505 of 1992 against the respondents seeking a direction to grant monthly pension, gratuity and arrears etc., payable to him in respect of his service. In the writ petition ﬁled by the husband of the petitioner herein narrated the facts that he entered into the service as a Peon in Thasil Oﬃce, Manvi, Raichur District in January, 1930 in the pay scale of Rs.12-15 per month and he worked for a period of 17 years. On attaining the age of superannuation he retired from service in the year 1947. He submitted that after his retirement neither the State of Karnataka nor the State of Andhra Pradesh granted pension and gratuity on the ground that he has not completed 25 years of service and therefore, he is not eligible to pension. In this regard, he referred that one Smt. Hussain Bee, W/o. late Tajuddin, from his village had ﬁled a W.P.No.10426 of 1990 on the ﬁle of this Court which was allowed on 21-08-1990 directing the respondents therein to grant family pension and accordingly the State of Andhra Pradesh implemented the said order by issuing G.O.Ms.No.12, dated 02-01-1991 and therefore, in view of the said orders, the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief. On hearing the learned counsel on either side of the writ petition ﬁled by the husband of the petitioner herein, wherein it was observed that this Court in W.P. No.10426 of 1990 held that the husband of the petitioner therein was also worked in the erstwhile state of Hyderabad in Raichur District, for a period of 13 years, which subsequently, became part of Karnataka State. Her claim was refused by both the Governments, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, for payment for family pension therefore, she ﬁled a writ petition and that was taken up. The contention of the State of Andhra Pradesh in the said case was that her husband was serving in Raichur District at the time of his death and the Raichur District became the part of Karnataka State with effect from 01-11-1956 and the State of Andhra Pradesh is not liable to extend the family pension beneﬁts. The Court rejected the said contention placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in SMT J.S. RUKMINIYAMMA AND OTHERS v. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS (1) Writ Petitions (Civil) Nos.806, 6756, 8483, 4309 & 9178 of 1982, wherein the Supreme Court held as under: “The object of the notification dated 26th May, 1979, does not warrant any such distinction to be made between the widows of one class of Government servants and the widows of another class merely on the basis of the place where the Government servant last served at the time of superannuation, although in both cases Government Servant served the same state…..”. It was also pointed out that the W.P. No.10426 of 1990 was allowed directing the respondents therein to ﬁx the family pension including the arrears as per the scheme evolved in G.O.Ms.No.83, Finance & Planning (PW) Pension-1) Department, dated 05-03-1983 and forward the necessary papers for payment to the Accountant General of A.P. within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. The learned standing counsel appeared for the respondents 1 and 2 in W.P. No.8505 of 1992 submitted that the case of the W.P. No.10426 1990 was not identical to the case of the petitioner in W.P. No.8505 of 1992 as the W.P. No.10426 of 1990 was ﬁled by the wife of the deceased employee but the W.P. No.8505 of 1992 was ﬁled by the petitioner himself, who worked and retired. In W.P. No.10426 of 1990 family pension was granted but not the pension. Therefore, there is no similarity or relevancy for one each other. But the same was not accepted by this Court in W.P. No.8505 of 1992 holding that when a family of the deceased employee is entitled to family pension, it is rather curious to state that the petitioner, who served, is not entitled to the pension. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the respondents in W.P. No.8505 of 1992 were directed to ﬁx the pension including the arrears payable to the petitioner therein and pay the same within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. On behalf of the respondents counter has been ﬁled narrating the facts and circumstances of the case. The counter does not say anything about the action being taken by the respondents and no communication was issued to the petitioner in respect of the representations said to have been made by her on 21-04-2004 and 07-07-2004. Since no legal action has been taken by the respondents for implementing the order dated 07-07-2003 the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition. During the course of hearing, the learned Government Pleader placed a copy of letter No.20143/169/A1/Pen-II/2008 dated 17-07-2008 of the Finance (Pension.II) Department addressed by the Secretary to Government (F.P.) to the Thasil, Oﬃce of the Tahsil Oﬃce Manvi, Raichur District, Karnataka State seeking service particulars of late Mohd. Haneef, Peon. He also submits that since full particulars are required to consider the case of the petitioner, the Finance Department addressed the said letter to the Tahsil Oﬃce requesting to thoroughly scrutinize the papers submitted by the individual and forward the same with all necessary certificates to implement the orders of this Court. The letter dated 17-07-2008 placed by the learned Government Pleader reads from para 4 to 9 as under: “4. The individual late Sri Mohd. Haneef, Peon claimed to have worked in the Tahsil oﬃce of the Raichur Tahsil of Ex-Hyderabad State and to have retired in the year 1947 on superannuation. 5. The individual ﬁled a W.P.No.8505/1992 requesting for sanction of pension. As per the contents of the Aﬃdavit ﬁled by the individual the individual rendered only 17 years of service and retired from service from your oﬃce in the years 1947. It is not known whether the above said individual submitted any pension papers in your oﬃce. But as veriﬁed from the records available in this department the individual did not submit any pension papers with this department. 6. The Hon’ble A.P.High Court in its order dated 7.7.2003 in W.P.No.8505/1992 have directed to ﬁx the pension including the arrears payable to the petitioner and pay the same within four months. But the individual did not submit any pension papers to this department to give eﬀect to the orders of the A.P. High Court in the above said W.P.No.8505/1992 and the individual is said to have died in the year 2004. 7. At this stage on Smt. Sakeena Begum, claiming to be the wife of late Mohd. Haneef, ﬁled a W.P.M.P.No.26258/04 in W.P.No.20040/04 in A.P. High Court praying sanction of pension to her late husband and family pension to her. The Hon’ble A.P.High Court has passed interim orders to process the pension papers of the individual. 8. As already stated above no pension papers were ﬁled by the Late Mohd. Haneef in this oﬃce. The Family Pension papers submitted by Smt. Sakeena Begum W/o. Late Mohd. Haneef, Ex-Peon, Tahsil oﬃce, Raichur have to scrutinized with the service particulars of her Late husband. Therefore, the individual has been instructed in this oﬃce Memo No.22345/169/A1/Pen.II/2008, dated:17-07-2008 to submit the papers in your oﬃce for your scrutiny and onward transmission to this department for taking a ﬁnal decision in the matter to comply with the orders of the A.P. High Court in the matter. 9. I therefore, request you to thoroughly scrutinize the papers submitted by the individual and forward the same to this oﬃce with all necessary certiﬁcates as mentioned below at your end to enable this department to implement the orders of the Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the matter. 1. Family Pension proposal in four sets.(one copy enclosed) 2. Service Book with upto date entries with proper attestation. 3. Last pay certificate. 4. No due certificate.” Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the letter dated 17-07- 2008 placed before this Court by the learned Government Pleader, this Court is of the opinion that as the factual position, with regard to the entitlement of the husband of the petitioner for pension, has already been profoundly discussed by this Court in the W.P. No.8505 of 1992, ﬁled by the husband of the petitioner herein, following the order dated 07-07-2003 made in W.P. No.8505 of 1992, the respondents are directed to ﬁx the pension including arrears payable to the husband of the petitioner herein, taking into consideration the order dated 07-07-2003, and release the family pension, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 06-09-2008 LSK