IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.23630 of 2008 Between: 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary to Revenue, (Services-IV) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Mahaboobnagar. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Wanaparthy, Mahaboobnagar District. ...PETITIONERS AND 1 Raheemunnisa Begum, R/o. H.No. 25-36, Old Bazar, Wanaparthy, Mahaboobnagar District. 2 The Accountant General, A.P. Hyderabad (R2 is a formal party as no relief is sought against him). ...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 Certiorari" calling for the records relating to the orders of the Hon'ble A.P. Admn. Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in O.A.No.537/2007 dated 07-6-2007 as being erroneous, illegal and unreasonable and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.23630 of 2008 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition is filed by the Government seeking Writ of Certiorari against the order dated 07.06.2007 in O.A.No.537 of 2007 passed by the Hon’ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (“the Tribunal” for brevity), wherein, it was held that the respondent’s husband is entitled for family pension and other pensionary benefits, as per the rules. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The first respondent herein approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging the impugned endorsement No.B1/648/02 dated 28.09.2006 issued by the third petitioner herein and Memo No.5904/SER III-2/03 dated 19.11.2004 issued by the first petitioner. The applicant, who is aged about 75 years, is the wife of late Gulam Rasool Shareef, who worked as a Clerk in Revenue Department of Mahabubnagar District. She applied for family pension and retrial benefits of her husband. The Government issued Memo rejecting the request of the applicant with regard to the family pension stating that her husband is not eligible for the same, as the record shows that he retired from service on 31.12.1949 and the period of absence from 01.01.1950 to 30.06.1972 cannot be treated as dies-non. Hence, the applicant filed the O.A. The O.A. was allowed holding that the order is estopped to ignore the absence as the impugned order is passed in ignorance of Government Memo No.347/75 dated 10.10.1975, wherein the period of absence from 01.01.1950 to 30.06.1972 was already treated as dies-non and the question of considering the same again, after lapse of 28 years does not arise and hence, the impugned order dated 07.10.2004 and its consequential order are set aside confirming the earlier order. The Tribunal considered the matter and ultimately issued memo dated 10.10.1975 where under the period of absence was treated as dies-non. The impugned proceedings are consequently liable to beset aside. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the applicant’s husband is entitled for pensionary benefit and also the family pension as per the Rules. Accordingly, the petitioners were directed to fix the pension of the applicant’s husband, in the light of the memo dated 10.10.1975 and pay the same with arrears. When the matter came up before this Court, we directed the petitioners to obtain instructions with regard to non-payment of pension with the second respondent. The Assistant Solicitor General filed a counter affidavit stating that the objection raised with regard to payment of pension has already been rectified and the payment of family pension was authorized on the net qualifying service of 13 years one month and 17 days, which they calculated and credited to the SB Account of the applicant. In the circumstances, the Tribunal rightly considered the matter, which warrants no interference. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. _____________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED, J) _________________ (SANJAY KUMAR, J) 17th December 2008 RRB