IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Writ Petition No.19375 of 2000 BETWEEN: Smt.P.Narayanamma, W/o.Late Sri P.Viswanadham, Hindu, aged about 46 years, Attender, Mandal Parishad, Chilkur, Nalgonda District. …Petitioner AND The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.19375 of 2000 ORDER (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) The petitioner herein, claiming to be the wife of the deceased employee late Sri P.Vishwanadham (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) filed this writ petition seeking to declare the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.3167 of 1998 dated 10.09.1999 and the consequential proceedings No. G1/11145/2000- ZP, dated 04.08.2000 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to pay the family pension in her favour. The brief facts, which have given rise to the proceedings, are that the deceased was working as attender in the office of the Mandal Parishad, Chilkur, Nalgonda District i.e. 2nd respondent herein and he died on 13.01.1990, while he was in service. Admittedly, petitioner is the second wife of the deceased, whereas the contesting respondent No.4 herein is the first wife of the deceased. After the death of the deceased, the petitioner was given compassionate appointment and she is still discharging her duties. However, on the objection raised by respondent No.4 herein and on the application filed before the Tribunal, which was allowed, it was held that having regard to the fact that the petitioner being the second wife of the deceased, she would not have any right to make claim. Even without interfering with the petitioner’s appointment in the said post, the direction given by the Tribunal to the official respondents to the effect that the death cum retirement gratuity benefits of the deceased to be given to respondent No.4 is challenged in this writ petition. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that having regard to the fact that respondent No.4 has given ‘no objection’ and the petitioner having been appointed as such on compassionate grounds, making of payment to respondent No.4 does not arise. Even otherwise, respondent No.4 deserted the deceased and there was a customary divorce and therefore, she would not be entitled to even the benefits as ordered. These submissions were sought to be referred to on behalf of respondent No. 4 denying the customary divorce and also reiterating the fact that she is the first wife of the deceased. Having regard to those considered submissions and also the material on record, the ultimate point, which arise for consideration, is whether in between the petitioner and the respondent No.4, who should be given the benefits of the deceased. As already stated above, there is no dispute with regard to the factum of marriage and the petitioner, admittedly being second wife, she could not make any claim or right as such, for any benefits of the deceased. However, the fact remains that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds and the same is not interfered with or varied with and there is no challenge against such appointment by respondent No.4. It is seen from the record that both the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 have given their consent, one claiming for payment of retiral benefits of the deceased and other for compassionate appointment and that arrangement was acted upon and acceded to. In view of such consent given by the parties, now it is not open for them to resile back and set up a new claim as such in its entirety. Having regard to the consent as made between the petitioner and respondent No.4, we do not find any justification to intervene with the same at this late hour. Hence, this writ petition is devoid of merits and the Tribunal has rightly ordered granting the benefits to respondent No.4. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ (B. PRAKASH RAO, J) ___________________ (G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J) October 28, 2009 BVV / CVRK