IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 25683 of 2007 Between: 1 The Executive Engineer, Nagarjunasagar Canal Monitoring Division, Tekulapally, Khammam District. 2 The Deputy Executive Engineer, Nagarjunasagar Canl Monitoring Sub-Division, Huzurnagar, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Smt. D. Kavitha, House-Hold R/o Huzurnagar, Nalgonda District. 2 The Accountant General (AE) Pension Section-7, A.P. 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 issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" calling for the records relating to the orders of the Hon'ble A.P. Admn, Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in O.A. no. 11363/2002 dated 24-2-2005 as being erroneous, illegal, and unreasonable and quash the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent No.: ---- The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 25683 of 2007 ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri. Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled by the State, challenging the order dated 24.2.2005 passed in O.A.No.11363 of 2002 by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The petitioners herein are respondents 2 and 3 and the 1st respondent herein is the applicant and the 2nd respondent herein is the 1st respondent before the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the O.A. The applicant ﬁled the above O.A., seeking to declare the action of the 1st respondent in not sanctioning the full shape family pension in her favour as per the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, dated 18.5.2001, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the 1st respondent to sanction full shape family pension and release the same forthwith. Facts stated are that the applicant is the wife of late Bixmaiah, who worked as Senior Assistant in the oﬃce of the 3r d respondent. He expired on 5.2.1999 leaving behind two daughters through his ﬁrst wife as legal heirs. On the basis of the legal heir certiﬁcate, the 1st respondent sanctioned family pension in favour of the applicant on 29.6.2000. On the objection raised by the daughters of the deceased through ﬁrst wife for sanctioning full pension to the applicant, the 1st respondent kept the matter in abeyance and thereafter, full pension has not been released to the applicant. Subsequently, the daughters of the deceased gave no objection to the 1st respondent to grant full pension to the applicant. But so far, no steps have been taken for releasing the full pension. On the other hand, the respondents ﬁled a counter- aﬃdavit before the Tribunal stating that one Kum. D. Anitha, daughter of the deceased Bixmaiah has been provided with appointment on compassionate grounds as Junior Assistant and posted to Forest Department in Bhadrachalam and another daughter Jyothi got married and that the declaration given by two daughters of the deceased for sanction of full pension to the applicant, has been submitted to the Accountant General vide letter dated 23.10.2000, 11.5.2000 and 18.5.2001 and the matter is pending with the 1st respondent. The Tribunal having considered these aspects of the matter disposed of the O.A., directing the 1st respondent to release family pension to the applicant by taking into consideration the letter addressed by the Executive Engineer, dated 18.10.2000 and the subsequent letters dated 23.10.2000, 11.12.2001 and 18.5.2001 and other retiral beneﬁts in accordance with rules. Aggrieved by the same, respondents 2 and 3 filed the present writ petition. It is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that since both the daughters of the first wife of the deceased Government servant have attained the age of 25 years, no further family pension is payable to them and when the daughters are not entitled to get family pension, the question of transferring their share of family pension to the 2nd wife does not arise and therefore, the order of the Tribunal cannot be held as sustainable. Heard the learned Government Pleader and perused the material available on record. Before going into the merits of the case, it is pertinent to note that in the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled before the Tribunal, the authorities have clearly stated that the daughters of the deceased Bixmaiah have given a declaration for sanction of the full pension to the applicant and the matter is pending consideration. Basing on that, the Tribunal passed the order impugned. In view of the proposals and the correspondence made by the authorities prior to the ﬁling of the writ petition and subsequent to the order of the Tribunal, and the undisputed averments raised in the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled before the Tribunal, We are of the view that the contention of the learned Government Pleader that in view of both the daughters of the deceased are settled and not entitled to claim family pension or give a declaration transferring their share of pension in favour of the applicant, cannot be sustained at this length of time. It is not the case of the petitioners herein that they never granted full pension to the applicant. It is subsequently, only on the objection raised by the daughters of the deceased, full pension has not been released. At this stage, it is not out of place to mention that the daughters of the deceased gave their no objection for sanction of full pension to the applicant at the earliest point of time. Therefore, the action of the authorities in not reviving the earlier order of full pension on the pretext of disentitlement of the daughters in giving declaration, cannot be sustained. In this view of the matter and in view of the sympathetic state of a widow, We feel that the order of the Tribunal does not warrant any interference and hence, this writ petition is devoid of merits and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ Justice Ghulam Mohammed ________________________ Justice G. Bhavani Prasad Date: 9.9.2008 Nn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 25683 of 2007 (Order delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) 09.09.2008