IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4757 of 2008 Between: Smt. Ayesha Bi W/o Late S. Mahaboob Miya R/o 30/133, Chittari Street, Met, Kurnool. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Accountant General Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Correspondent Umer Arabic High School, Kurnool, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENT(S 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 that the interpretation made by the 1st respondent relating to G.O (P) No. 523, Finance (Pen.I) Department dt 22-6-2004, as illegal arbitrary and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.A.K.MYNODDIN Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is the wife of late Mahaboob Miya. Through another wife, Mahaboob Miya had a daughter, by name Naseemunnisa. She was employed as a Teacher, in the year 1986, and she is said to have died, while in service, as spinster, on 19.12.1999. Mahaboob Miya also died. The petitioner, who is the step-mother of late Naseemunnisa, was extended certain benefits of apportionment. The petitioner filed a claim before the 1st respondent for extension of the benefit of Family Pension, in terms of G.O.(P).No.523, dated 22.06.2004. She pleaded that she comes within the definition of ‘Family’. Through letter dated 20.03.2006, the 1st respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner, on the ground that the G.O. had come into operation from the year 2004, whereas the deceased died in the year 1999. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. Heard Sri S.A.K.Mynoddin learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Smt.Shyam Sundari, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent. The Family Pension is payable to the persons who are included in the definition of ‘Family’, in the A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980. The definition did not include widowed or divorced daughter of an employee, or his parents. Representations were received from the Unions of Employees, in this regard. The Government issued G.O.(P).M.No.523 , dated 22.06.2004, expanding the definition of ‘Family’, for the purpose of Family Pension. The widowed and divorced daughters of an employee were included in the definition. It was also provided that where the employee did not leave a widow, or a divorced child, and if his parents were dependent upon him, while alive, the parents would also come within the definition of ‘Family’. Assuming that the reason furnished by the 1st respondent about the date of commencement of the G.O., is not correct, this Court finds it difficult to extend any relief to the petitioner. The reason is that when admittedly she is the step-mother and she has her own offsprings, she cannot be treated as parent of the deceased- employee. The Family Member Certificate, issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kurnool, discloses that while the petitioner had her daughter, by name Farhana, the deceased, Naseemunnisa, had two sisters and two brothers. Already the death-cum-retirement benefits of the employee were extended to the legal heirs, in accordance with the Law of Succession. The petitioner does not answer the description of the ‘parent’, of that employee, being a step-mother. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.11.03.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ