IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 9146 of 2006 Between: 1 The Chief Postmaster General, A.P. Circle, Hyderabad. 2 The Post Master General, Visakhapatnam Region, Visakhapatnam-530 101. 3 The Supdt. of Post Offices, Rajahmundry Division, Rajamundry-533 101. ..... PETITIONERS AND K. Sita Maha Laxmi, W/o. Late Appala Swamy, R/o. 44-16-7/1, Annapurnammapeta, Rajahmundry-533 103. .....RESPONDENT 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 preferably a writ in the nature of certiorari or any appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records pertaining to Order dt. 30.02.2006 in O.A.No.176 of 2006 on the ﬁl Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, and quash the same or pass such further or other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) Counsel for the Respondent: MR.KALLAKURI SRINIVASARAO The Court made the following : ORDER: (per GM,J) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order, dated 20.02.2006, passed in O.A.No.176 of 2005, by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The case of the respondent/applicant is that she married deceased-K.Appalaswamy, who was working in the Head Post Oﬃce, Rajahmundry, in the year 1956. Before their marriage, there was a valid divorce between K.Appalaswamy and his first wife-Smt.Ramanujamma. Their marriage was registered on 18.03.1978. The husband of the applicant died, while he was in service. The applicant availed medical and LTC facilities, as wife of the deceased employee. It is further stated that the respondents have allowed her to enjoy all the beneﬁts, but when it comes to the question of family pension, due to demise of her husband, the third respondent vide letter, dated 04.08.2004, informed that she is not entitled to family pension, as she is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee. Questioning the same, she ﬁled O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, seeking a direction to the respondents to consider her case for the purpose of family pension with all arrears and consequential benefits. The petitioners/respondents ﬁled counter-aﬃdavit, in the O.A., stating that the deceased employee married Smt.Ramanujamma in the year 1943/44, and he married the applicant, while in service, in 1956, before divorce, and therefore, the second marriage is null and void and is against the provisions of Rule 21 of Central Civil Services (Classiﬁcation, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1964 and therefore, she is not entitled to family pension. Taking into consideration the rival claims put forth by the parties and on perusal of the material produced before it, the Tribunal through the impugned order, dated 20.02.2006, allowed the O.A., on the grounds that the name of the applicant is very munch mentioned in the pension papers; that the marriage between the applicant and the deceased employee was duly registered in the year 1978 and that the ﬁrst wife did not claim family pension after the demise of the employee, though she was alive at that point of time. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners ﬁled the present writ petition. Heard the counsel on record and perused the material placed before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners/respondents strenuously contended that when the ﬁrst wife is surviving and when there was no legal separation between the ﬁrst wife and the employee, the second marriage between the applicant and the employee is null and void and therefore, the applicant cannot be said to be legally wedded wife of the deceased and she is not entitled to any family pension. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/applicant contended that since the applicant married the deceased employee according to the customary law, after divorce with the ﬁrst wife and that the marriage with the applicant has been registered in the year 1978, the applicant cannot be denied the family pension, on the ground that she is not legally wedded wife of the deceased employee. Further, the ﬁrst wife of the deceased employee did not claim family pension after his demise, which clearly shows that she had no right to claim it, because their divorce had already taken place. Having considered the submissions on either side and on perusal of the impugned order, we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly held that the name of the applicant is very much available in the service record and also in the pension papers and that the marriage between the applicant and deceased employee was registered in the year 1978 itself and though the ﬁrst wife is alive, she did not claim pension and therefore, the applicant cannot be denied the family pension. In that view of the matter, we do not ﬁnd any error apparent on the face of the record in the order passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J. Dated:06.09.2008 _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J. GJ