IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 24495 of 2005 Between: K. Laxmana Rao, Minorm And mother Smt. K. Padma, W/o. Late Narsinga Rao, R/o. West Maredpally, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 I.D.L. Industries Limited, P.B. No. 1, Sanathnagar., IE, (PO), Hyderabad, Rep by its Managing Director 2 The Depot Commissioner of Providnet Fund, Kukatpalli, Ranga Reddy Hyderabad. 3 The Commissioner of Provident Fund, 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 mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in withholding and refusing to pay the child pension to the writ petitioner who is the minor son of decease employee in PPO No. 18433/2047/2001 as illegal and arbitrary and also contrary to the orders passed in WP No. 14492 of 2002, dt. 29-12-2004 and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith release the child pension to the minor petitioner consequent on the eligibility in the interest of justice along with all consequential arrears and to 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 Petitioner: MR.J.U.M.V.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: MR.R.N.REDDY (SC FOR EMPLOY'S PF ORG.) The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.24495 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner is son of late Narsinga Rao, who was an employee of I.D.L. Industries Limited, ﬁrst respondent herein. He was member of Provident Fund, which was regulated by the provisions of t h e Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and the schemes made thereunder including the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 (pension scheme, for short). Narasinga Rao died on 01.05.1999. The petitioner’s mother Smt. K.Padma was granted monthly widow pension under para 16(2) of pension scheme. The petitioner and his elder brother – Krishna were sanctioned monthly children pension under para 16(3) of pension scheme. This is one side of the story. The other side of the background is as follows. Smt. K. Lakshmi is ﬁrst wife of Narasinga Rao. She ﬁled O.P.No.7 of 1998 on the ﬁle of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, Warangal District, for dissolution of marriage, and the same was decreed on 25.09.1998. She also ﬁled interlocutory application for maintenance, which was granted to her with regard to post death beneﬁts as by that time Narasinga Rao died. Armed with this maintenance order in I.A.No.240 of 1999 dated 20.10.1999 passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, Warangal District, K. Lakshmi ﬁled W.P.No.14492 of 2002 seeking a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to pay death beneﬁts of Narasinga Rao. The matter ended in a compromise and this Court disposed of said writ petition on 29.12.2004 in terms of the compromise. Memorandum of compromise stipulated that Smt. K. Laxmi would be entitled to receive pensionary beneﬁts of late Narasinga Rao and Smt. K. Padma, mother of petitioner, while relinquishing her right to pensionary beneﬁts, would be entitled to seek monthly widow pension. In terms of the said order, it appears that second respondent started paying monthly widow pension to Smt. Padma. Lone daughter of Smt.Laxmi and elder son of Smt. Padma were admitted to monthly children pension denying the same to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, came to this Court for redressal. A counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Legal). It is stated that Narasinga Rao is survived by K.Laxmi - ﬁrst wife, K. Padma - second wife and three children, one daughter to ﬁrst wife and two sons to second wife. Para 16(3)(d) of pension scheme enables payment of monthly children pension to two children. Pension was denied to the petitioner duly continuing such pension to daughter of K.Laxmi and ﬁrst son of K.Padma. The grievance of the petitioner that being second son of K.Padma, he alone is entitled for monthly children pension is not supported by law. As per para 16(3)(d) of pension scheme, monthly children pension shall be admissible to maximum of two children at a time and will run from the oldest to the youngest child in that order. Admittedly the petitioner’s brother is eldest among the two. Though in the usual course the petitioner also would have been also entitled to the monthly children pension, by reason of the compromise which was recorded in W.P.No.14492 of 2002, it is only the children of Smt. K Laxmi, who are entitled to monthly children pension. As Smt. K. Laxmi had only one daughter, the monthly children pension payable to second child has been given to brother of the petitioner - Krishna, who is eldest child of K. Padma. The decision of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is in accordance with para 16(3) of pension scheme and the same is unassailable. For the above reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 16th September, 2008 GHN To 1 I.D.L. Industries Limited, P.B. No. 1, Sanathnagar., IE, (PO), Hyderabad, Rep by its Managing Director 2 The Depot Commissioner of Providnet Fund, Kukatpalli, Ranga Reddy Hyderabad. 3 The Commissioner of Provident Fund, Hyderabad. 4 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}