IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.9335 OF 2011 Date:13-04-2011 Between:- Minnie Fredrick .. Petitioner And Senior Accounts Officer, Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner and rejecting her claim to grant pensionary benefits payable to the deceased sister of the petitioner by issuing Lr.Rc.No.669/P1/2003 dated 28.08.2010 and Lr.Rc.No.669/P1/2003 dated 19.01.011 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short, ‘Rules’) and consequently, to direct the respondents to grant pensionary and other benefits of the deceased sister of the petitioner in favour of the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that her sister Nalini E.P.Sunderam, who worked as an English Lecturer in third respondent-College, died on 07-10-2002 at Yasodha Hospital, Malakpet. She already obtained divorce from her husband and had no children. Though one minor girl namely Kumari Amrutha was taken by her late sister to look after her care and custody, a correspondence was made with the respondent authorities to treat the minor girl as the adopted daughter and to grant pensionary benefits in the name of the minor daughter, it was rejected on the ground that the Christian Personal Law does not permit for adoption of a daughter and hence, rejected to grant pension to the minor girl. The petitioner filed W.P.No.25725 of 2005 challenging the action of the respondents and later, it was withdrawn on 05.12.2009. The respondents specifically stated that adoption is legally not valid, that contrary to the rules and regulations of the department, question of granting pension and other benefits in the name of the minor child does not arise. The parents of the deceased died long back and except the petitioner, there are no other legal heirs. Hence, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents to consider her case. Without proper examination of the relevant Rules and Regulations, the respondents issued impugned letters dated 28.08.2010 and 19.01.2011 intimating that the petitioner is not entitled to claim any pensionary benefits of her deceased sister. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was shown as a nominee for receipt of the terminal benefits of her deceased sister and therefore, she is entitled for the benefits as prayed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that since the petitioner or the minor, who was brought by the deceased, is not the dependant on the deceased employee, she is not entitled to the pensionary benefits and that the respondents will consider the case of the petitioner insofar as the payment of other terminal benefits in terms of the nomination. 5. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The deceased, who is sister of petitioner, while working in the third respondent-College as a Lecturer, died on 07-10-2002 at Yasodha Hospital, Malakpet. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was shown as a nominee to receive certain terminal benefits of her deceased sister. Insofar as the other benefits are concerned, it is the nomination, which is relevant for the purpose of giving the terminal benefits after death of the employee. Therefore, the third respondent-College has to take a decision with regard to payment of the terminal benefits, excluding the pension, to the petitioner, who is nominee, and claims to be the sister of the deceased. 6. Two essentials are necessary in order to constitute a pension (i) it must be periodical payment (ii) it must be a grant not in respect of any right, privilege, perquisite but on account of past service. It is a bounty for past service rendered to the college. It is mainly designed to assist the pensioner in providing his daily wants. In the case of family pension, rules governing the service conditions of deceased employee may provide for the grant of family pension. Normally widow of the deceased employee is the real beneficiary. The person claiming pension must establish that he is entitled to such pension in law. Petitioner failed to establish his entitlement to prefer such claim. 7. Insofar as the family pension is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner is not depending on the earnings of the deceased. She is married and living with her husband. When such is the case, the pensionary benefits cannot be given to the petitioner. Therefore, the relief insofar as granting pensionary benefits to the petitioner is dismissed. However, the third respondent-College shall consider the case of petitioner in respect of granting other terminal benefits like Provident Fund, Gratuity etc. in terms of the nomination given by the deceased and in accordance with law. 8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 13th April, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.9335 OF 2011 Date:13-04-2011 AMD