IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7960 of 2009 Between: A.K.S.S. Prasad, S/o. Late A. Someswara Rao, H.No. 2-127, Plot No. 32 & 33, Adarsha Apartments, Lalitha Nagr X Roads, Jillelaguda, Ranga Reddy District - 500 079. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman & Managing Director, Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Chief General Manager (HRD) Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.V.SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents:MR. G.NAGABHUSHANA REDDY FOR MR.P.R.BALARAMI REDDY (SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for release of family pension in terms of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short ‘the Rules’) as amended in G.O.Ms.No.240, dated 01.06.1994. The petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents to release the pension in his favour in accordance with the said amendment. The petitioner is the son of Sri Someswara Rao, a former employee of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, who died in harness. After demise of the petitioner’s father, family pension was sanctioned in favour of his mother during her lifetime. After her death, the family pension was extended to the petitioner up to the age of 25 years. The petitioner made representation, dated 22.06.2004 and followed it by another representation, dated 02.12.2005 wherein he claimed extension of the benefit of payment of family pension beyond the age of 25 years on the ground that he met with an accident while going to his office on 05.07.2003 and became handicapped due to the said accident. The petitioner placed reliance on the amendment to Rule 50 of the Rules, for this purpose. The said representations of the petitioner were considered by respondent No.2 and were rejected with the following reasoning. “In this behalf, as per A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, the relevant Rule 50(v) state that, the period for which family pension is payable shall be as follows:- · In the case of a widow or widower, up to the date of death of re-marriage, whichever is earlier. · In the case of a son, until he attains the age of 25 years and · In the case of an unmarried daughter until she attains the age of 30 years or until she gets married, whichever is earlier. Provided that, if the son or daughter of a Government servant is suffering from any disorder or disability of mind or is physically crippled or disabled so as to render him or her unable to earn a living even after attaining the ages of son/daughter as specified in clause (ii) and (iii), the family pension shall be payable to such son or daughter for life. Further, as per G.O.Ms.No.240, dated 01.06.1994 it is stated that the manifestation of the above disability should be before the retirement/death in harness of the Government employee. In this case, you have met with an accident in the year 2003. Your father has expired in 1983. On reviewing the above, it is seen that, the above provision applies only to such persons suffering from disorder or disability or of physically crippled or disabled to render him or her unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of 25 years. Your case is not one such, since, by your own admission you have availed pension till the age of 25. The accident occurred in 7/03, after your eligibility for pension is over. Having regard to the above, APEPDCL is not in a position to accept your request having regard to the relevant Rules and Regulations governing Family Pension matters. Hence, your request is rejected.” More than 3 ½ years after passing the said rejection order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition questioning the same. At the hearing, Sri Y.V.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.2 has not properly appreciated the scope of amendment brought out by G.O.Ms.No.240, dated 01.06.1994. According to the learned counsel, the family pension payable to the dependants of the deceased employees shall be continued beyond 25 years even if the dependants incur disability after the death or retirement of the employees. The learned counsel referred to the said G.O. On a careful perusal of the said G.O., I find that there is undoubtedly a reference to Government of India’s Memo No.1/80/89- P&PW(C), dated 19.02.1990, whereby it added explanation to Rule 54(8) of the Central Civil Services Pension Rules by providing that the family pension will be payable to the dependants of the employees even if they have incurred disability or the same is manifested even after retirement or death of the Government employees. However, purporting to adopt the said memorandum, the State Government by the said G.O.Ms.No.240, brought out an amendment to Rule 50(5) of the Rules by adding item (ii) to the proviso to Sub-Rule 5, which reads as under: “(ii) if there are more than one such child suffering from disorder or disability of mind or who are physically crippled or disabled, the family pension shall be paid in the order of their births and younger of them will get the family pension only after the elder next above him/her ceases to be eligible.” In my considered view, the amendment brought out by the above- mentioned G.O. has not incorporated the provision contained in the memo of the Government of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner conceded to this extent. Therefore, irrespective of the sustainability of the claim of the petitioner that he incurred disability to such an extent that he has not been able to eke out his livelihood on his own. The claim of the petitioner based on the purported amendment of the Rules is not supported by the said Rules. The fact remains that, as on today, there is no provision in the revised Rules, which permits the dependant of an employee retired or died and who incurred disability after such retirement or death of the employee to claim family pension beyond the age of 25 years. Respondent No.2 has very rightly rejected the request of the petitioner for continuing family pension beyond the age of 25 years. Therefore, I do not find any reason whatsoever to interfere with the said order, which is questioned more than 3 ½ years after the same was passed. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.10430 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th APRIL, 2009. kvni