THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.23148 OF 1998 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents – Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board – (for short ‘the Board’) to pay all the service benefits such as family pension, gratuity and other consequential and attendant benefits along with appropriate interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum by setting aside the impugned memo.No.DEE/O/VSM/Adm/U1/D.No.166/97 dated 20.1.1997 passed by the 3rd respondent – Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), Vizianagram. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is stated that the husband of the petitioner was appointed as Helper in the then respondent – Board on 20.4.1984 and discharged duties under the control of Assistant Divisional Engineer, Electrical Distribution, Vizianagaram and as he was suffering from Chronic Hepatitis and Cirrhosis diseases, based on the advise of doctors, he applied for earned leave from 17.6.1989 to 30.6.1989 and subsequently due to total failure of hepatic system, and as he could not go to the office, the petitioner submitted letter for extension of leave in the office and informed about the ill-health of her husband. Eventually the husband of the petitioner died on 6.5.1991 leaving her, his old aged widowed mother and two minor children. The petitioner approached the 3rd respondent for service benefits and submitted all the documents in original. But the 3rd respondent vide memo No.DEE/O/VZM/Adm/U1/D.No.166/97 dated 20.1.1997 rejected the sanction of family pension and gratuity on the ground that her husband was on unauthorized absence from 1.7.1989. The grievance of the petitioner is that the employment of her husband was the only source of income and that before rejecting the proposals sent for sanction of family pension and gratuity, no enquiry or any notice was issued and hence she filed the present writ petition. 4. The Assistant Secretary (Legal) who is the working in the 1st respondent – Board (presently A.P. Transco) filed counter affidavit and submitted that the husband of the petitioner applied for earned leave from 17.6.1989 to 30.6.1989 and subsequently no application for extension of leave has been received in their office and there is no record in proof of his ill- health and till the wife of the employee submitted application seeking sanction of pensionary benefits along with death certificate stating that her husband died on 6.5.1991, there was no information and the pension proposals were processed by the Superintending Engineer, Operation, Vizianagaram and as the husband of the petitioners died while on unauthorized absence for more than one year and ten months, the impugned order was passed rejecting the pension and gratuity to the petitioner. It is further stated that as per Regulation 28(3) of A.P.S.E.B. Services Regulations Part-III any employee of the Board who remained unauthorizedly absent from duty for continuous period of one year, shall be deemed to have resigned from service from the date of absence and shall automatically cease to be the employee of the Board and as the husband of the petitioner absconded from 1.7.1989, he ceased to be an employee of the Board and hence not entitled for any pensionary benefits. With these averments, inter alia, the writ petition was sought to be dismissed. 5. From the above, the admitted facts are that the husband was appointed as Helper in the respondent – Board on 20.4.1985 and he applied for earned leave from 17.6.1989 to 30.6.1989 and subsequently he died on 6.5.1991. The dispute is with regard to subsequent application for extension of leave. The case of the petitioner as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that as the petitioner was suffering from chronic hepatitis and cirrhosis diseases, based on the advise of the doctor, he applied for earned leave from 17.6.1989 to 30.6.1989 and subsequently, as there is total failure of the hepatic system, he could not go and the petitioner herself went to the office and gave letter of extension of leave in the office of the respondent – Board and also informed about the ill health of her husband and however she could not preserve the copy of the letter seeking extension of leave. In the counter, though it is stated that the husband applied for earned leave from 17.6.1989 to 30.6.1989 and subsequently there is no letter seeking extension of leave, it is stated that they have no record in proof of ill- health referred to by the petitioner. But it is conspicuously noticed that they did not refer to the reason for application of leave from 17.6.1989 to 30.6.1989 and their only ground is that there is no record in proof of ill-health and not that the husband of the petitioner is not suffering from ill-health. On the other hand, the specific case of the petitioner is that as her husband was suffering from ill-health referred to above, on the advise of doctor, he applied for earned leave from 17.6.1989 to 30.6.1989 and subsequently as there was total failure of hepatic system, he could not go and she herself went to the office and submitted letter seeking extension of leave and that her husband died on 6.5.1991 and her case is that as she is an illiterate women, she could not preserve the copy of the said letter. Further when the husband of the petitioner was appointed on 20.4.1985 and admittedly applied for earned leave from 17.6.1989 to 30.6.1989 and further even assuming that no letter was given till the petitioner submitted pension proposals stating that her husband died on 6.5.1991 along with death certificate, the respondents, before rejecting the pensionary benefits through the impugned proceedings, ought to have considered the circumstances and the case of the petitioner based on the record and the earlier earned leave letter submitted by the husband of the petitioner and ought to have at least followed the principles of natural justice by giving notice and conducting enquiry. Hence, in these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned proceeding is set aside and the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for grant of family pension and gratuity afresh, by giving sufficient opportunity and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. AVS ---------------------------- 20—06—2008