THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Dated this the 20th day of November, 2009. Writ Petition No. 1378 of 1999 Between: K.Kamala. …….Petitioner vs. 1.The Commissioner of Endowments, A.P. Hyderabad and another. ……..Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Writ Petition No. 1378 of 1999 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted by a widow of an employee who has rendered a considerable length of service in Sri Raja Rajeshwara Swamy Devasthanam, Vemulawada, Karimnagar District seeking to extend in her favour the benefit of pension in terms of orders passed by the State Government in their G.O.Ms.No. 680 Revenue (Endowments-II) Department dt. 15.7.1987. The case of the writ petitioner is that her husband joined the service of 2nd respondent Devasthanam as an Attender on 1.5.1959 and subsequently he was promoted as a Daffedar on 8.4.1964 and was further promoted as a Record Assistant. While he was working as a Record Assistant, he suffered a cerebral stroke and became paraplegic since 7.11.1980. He was initially granted leave as well as commuted leave upto 31.1.1981 as per his eligibility. Even after expiry of the leave period, he could not resume duties because of his paraplegic condition. To save his family from distressingly indigent conditions, the husband of the writ petitioner has solicited appointment in favour of his son K.Natarajan. His son was appointed on NMR basis with effect from 11.6.1981. Subsequently, by an order passed on 29.3.1983, his son K.Natarajan came to be appointed temporarily as a Record Assistant. He is now continuing in service. However, in the mean time, the State Government has taken a policy decision to extend pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity benefits to the employees of the temple where the Deputy Commissioners of Endowments were posted as Executive Officers. In other words, the pension and death-cum-gratuity benefits have been extended to five of the temples, which are notified as 6 (a) Temples. Of the five temples, the 2nd respondent Devasthanam is one of them. The benefits of pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity have been thus brought into force with effect from 1.1.1982. Therefore, the present writ petition has been instituted seeking for such benefits. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed their counter affidavits in the matter. Though it is a fact that the husband of the writ petitioner became paraplegic and consequently was confined to bed from 7.11.1980 onwards, there is no order passed by the 2nd respondent Devasthanam retiring him from service. Taking into consideration the pathetic and indigent circumstances into which the family has been reduced, his son came to be engaged on NMR basis with effect from 11.6.1981. Therefore, a doubt was persisting in the minds of the respondents as to whether the husband of the writ petitioner should be treated to have retired from service with effect from 11.6.1981 or not. If the writ petitioner’s husband has retired from the service of the 2nd respondent Devasthanam on or after 1.1.1982, no doubt about extending the benefit of pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity in terms of the policy decision announced by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No. 680 dt. 15.7.1987 would arise. Further, if the husband of the writ petitioner is liable to be treated to have been continued in the 2nd respondent Devasthanam till 29.3.1983, the date on which his son was appointed on temporary basis as a Record Assistant against a clear vacancy caused due to retirement of the husband of the writ petitioner, then in such a case, the writ petitioner would be entitled to seek pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity which is payable to her husband. In this context when the Executive Officer of the temple solicited detailed instructions through his letter dt. 11.6.1981, as to whether the application of the son of the petitioner can be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds due to premature retirement of his father, the Commissioner of Endowments replied to the same through his Proceedings D.Dis.No. D3/35257/81 dt. 15.9.1981. It would be appropriate to notice the contents thereof as it is: “The attention of the Executive Officer Sri Rajarajeswara Samy Devasthanam, Vemulawada is invited to the reference cited and he isinformed that the condition laid down in the G.O.Ms.No. 504 GAD dt. 30.7.80 is that the application for appointment from such persons i.e. sons of a retired person shall be entertained within a period of one year from the date of retirement of Government service. In this case, the temple employee is not yet retired. He wants an assurance that if his son is appointed, he would tender resignation. Such assurance cannot be given and the incumbent also cannot claim as a matter of right. If he has become bed ridden and not in a position to discharge his duties, he can tender resignation. After this, his son’s application can be considered on merits and in the light of the conditions laid down in G.O. the Executive Officer is requested to take necessary action in the matter.” From the above Proceedings, it is manifestly clear that the Commissioner of Endowments rightly treated the husband of the writ petitioner not to have retired from service as on 15.9.198. In other words, the Commissioner of Endowments as well as the 2nd respondent temple was treating the husband of the writ petitioner to have continued in service, even as on 15.9.1981, though not physically rendering services. In response to these orders passed by the Commissioner of Endowments on 15.9.1981, the son of the writ petitioner as noticed supra, came to be appointed as a Record Assistant on temporary basis through the Proceedings Rc.No. A.2/1882/80 dt. 29.3.1983 of the Executive Officer of the 2nd respondent Devasthanam. This order clearly specifies that K.Natarajan, the son of the writ petitioner herein, is appointed as a Record Assistant temporarily in the existing vacancy caused due to the retirement of his father as a Record Assistant. In other words, the 2nd respondent Devasthanam appears to have treated the husband of the writ petitioner to have continued in service till about 29.3.1983. If that be the case, the benefit of pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity which was rendered applicable to the employees of the 2nd respondent with effect from1.1.1982 becomes attracted and applicable and consequently the petitioner herein would be entitled to be paid those benefits. Since there is no clear record anywhere as to the date on which the husband of the writ petitioner is treated or declared to have retired from the service of the 2nd respondent Devasthanam, this question requires to be resolved first. The learned Counsel for the respondents has tried to point out that since the son of the writ petitioner came to be appointed on 11.6.1981 on NMR basis, it pre-supposes that the husband of the writ petitioner was treated to have retired from service with effect from that date. I am afraid, that this contention canvassed by the learned Counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted in view of the orders of the Commissioner of Endowments in D.Dis.No. D3/35257/81 dt. 15.9.1981 wherein in no unmistakable terms, the Commissioner of Endowments has asserted that the husband of the writ petitioner has not yet retired from the service of 2nd respondent Devasthanam. That was, as of 15.9.1981, subsequent to the appointment of the son of the writ petitioner on NMR basis. Therefore, the appointment of the son of the writ petitioner on NMR basis from 11.6.1981 cannot be linked up possibly with date of retirement of the husband of the writ petitioner. But however in contrast, a clear and positive indication is available from the order dt. 29.3.1983 passed by the 2nd respondent Devasthanam while appointing the son of the writ petitioner as a Record Assistant on temporary basis, wherein it was clearly observed that he was so appointed against a clear vacancy caused due to retirement of the husband of the writ petitioner. Therefore, to my mind it is more probable that the respondents have treated the husband of the writ petitioner to have retired from service either with effect from 29.3.1983 or with effect from 31.12.1982, within a reasonable period of proximity to the orders of the 2nd respondent Devasthanam dt. 29.3.1983. However, this factual aspect deserves to be determined by the respondents first. For this purpose, I consider it appropriate to direct the Commissioner of Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad to determine the date of retirement of the husband of the writ petitioner within a reasonable period of proximity to the order passed by the 2nd respondent Devasthanam on 29.3.1983 appointing the son of the writ petitioner as a Record Assistant against a clear vacancy caused due to the retirement of the husband of the writ petitioner. From the record, it is reasonable to infer that the husband of the writ petitioner retired from the service only after 1.1.1982. Thereafter, the case of the writ petitioner shall be taken up for sanction of family pension from the date of death of her husband. This exercise may be completed within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________________​ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J 20.11.2009. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Writ Petition No. 1378 of 1999 Dated 20.11.2009.