IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 830 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 17/04/2009 in WP NO : 7680 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Smt. Kantamani Surya Kumari W/o. Late Srinivasa Rao R/o. D.No. 3-10-2, Near Karri Nageswara Rao Hospital, Subbaraopet, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Tahsildar, Nallajerla Mandal, West Godavari District. 2 Sri. Kantamani Narayana Prasad S/o.Late Srinivasa Rao R/o. Ananthapalli Village, Nallajerla Mandal, West Godavari District. 3 Smt. Kodeli Nirmala Devi W/o. Anjaneya Chowdary, D/o. Late Srinivasa Rao R/o. Surya Towers, New Ashok Nagar, Gavaravaram, Eluru, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:SMT.N.(P).ANJANA DEVI, SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 830 of 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 17.4.2009 made in Writ Petition No. 7680 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the learned single judge has dismissed the writ petition of the appellant-writ petitioner. Appellant claims to be the second wife of late K. Srinivasa Rao, an Ex.M.L.A. After the demise of her husband, appellant has approached the 1st respondent for issuance of a family member Certificate. The 1st respondent, through order dated 19.7.2008, rejected the request of the appellant. Subsequently, the appellant has submitted another representation dated 24.1.2009 to the 1st respondent, which was also rejected by the 1st respondent on the ground that since the family member certificate was issued to the son and daughter of late Srinivasa Rao, the respondents 3 and 4, through his first wife, the request of the appellant/writ petitioner cannot be considered. Challenging the same, the appellant filed the aforementioned writ petition before the learned single Judge. By order dated 7.4.2009, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition by observing that at any rate, the 1st respondent cannot be expected to adjudicate the matters of this nature. If the appellant intends to establish her right vis-à-vis the estate of late Srinivasa Rao, in any manner, she or her children have to approach the Civil Court for necessary reliefs. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal. Smt. Anjanadevi Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the learned judge dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage, even before a counter affidavit is filed by the respondents- authorities in the said writ petition. While relying on Rule 50 of Sub-Rule(6)(a) (i) of the Revised Pension Rules, 1980, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that “where the family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to the widows in equal shares”. She further contends that the appellant is seeking for issuance of the family member certificate only for the purpose of claiming family pension and she is not claiming any rights in the estate of her husband. Hence, she prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. In view of the fact that the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage even before a counter affidavit is filed by the respondents and in view of the fact that he did not consider the entitlement of the appellant to family pension as per Rule 50 of Sub-Rule(6)(a)(i) of the Revised Pension Rules, 1980, the matter requires to be remanded to the learned single judge for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned single judge. The learned single judge shall now decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant and after counters are filed by the respondents. No costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 8th July, 2009 _________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J pnb