YADDANAPUDI RENUKA DEVI v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

PM2/AP/A1/P5N-614/SP-553/1993-101295542 dated. 20.02.2020 issued by the respondent no.2 stating that the petitioner is not eligible for sanction of Family Pension as per G.O.Ms.No.152 Finance (HR.III - Pension) Department dated. 25.11.2019 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the A.P Revised Pension Rules,1980, contrary to the orders passed in W.P No. 19671 of 2020 and batch and Set-aside the proceedings of the respondents 2 to 4 and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 4 to sanction the family pension to the petitioner on the ground of Widowed and Mentally Retarded Daughter of Late B.H Venakata Rao from the date of his death dt.15.02.2018and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents 2 and 4 to sanction the family pension to the petitioner on the ground of Widowed and Mentally Retarded Daughter of Late B.H Venakata Rao from the date of Petitioner's father death dt.15.02.2018and Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. PULIPATI RADHIKA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES IV

2. GP FOR SERVICES I

3. K SWARNA SESHU The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Smt. Pulipati Radhika, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services – III.

2. Challenging the proceedings of the respondents in rejecting the grant of family pension, the instant writ petition has been filed. 3

3. It is contended that the petitioner’s father had retired from service as Senior Assistant from Government Hospital, Vijayawada. During his lifetime, he made an application to the 3rd respondent seeking family pension to his daughter - the petitioner herein, as she is a widow and was depending on him as she is a mentally retarded person. The same was not considered, after his death, the petitioner had filed the instant writ petition seeking grant of family pension. The 3rd respondent had forwarded the proposal for grant of family pension to the 2nd respondent. The said application was returned by the 2nd respondent as there is no provision under law which entitles a widowed daughter to seek family pension. Basing on the same, the impugned proceedings dated 02.09.2022 have been passed, the respondents 4 and 5 rejected the application of the petitioner citing G.O.Ms.No.152, Finance (HR.III-Pension) Department dated 25.11.2019, which prescribes age limit of 45 years as eligible. Challenging the same, the instant writ petition has been filed. In the writ petition, the petitioner is being represented by her brother Sri B.H.Naga Damodaram.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Smt. Pulipati Radhika argues that the G.O.Ms.No.152 Finance (HR.III-Pension) Department dated

25.11.2019 is no longer in existence as the same was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.19671 of 2020, against which a writ appeal has been filed and the same is pending in W.A.No.632 of 2021.

5. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that the Government servant, and after the death of his wife, had made a 4 representation for the inclusion of the name of the petitioner for the grant of family pension. The same was returned, stating that the widowed daughters' pension proposals would be considered only after the Government servant's demise. Accordingly, after the death of the Government servant, the pension sanctioning authority forwarded the pension proposals of the widowed daughter, Smt. Y.Renuka Devi, which were rejected on account of the age criteria mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.152 Finance (HR.III-Pension) Department dated 25.11.2019.

6. Further, the 2nd respondent raised certain issues regarding the petitioner's name and her father's name, i.e., the name of the Government servant, as recorded in the disability certificate annexed to the writ petition and in the list of family members in the service register; the petitioner's name is not the same as the one mentioned, which is B.H.Kanakavalli. It is further stated by the 2nd respondent that the petitioner never claimed to be a disabled person. Further, unless the pension sanctioning authority carries out any necessary corrections in the service register and the list of nominees for service pension, they cannot grant a pension.

7. Considered the submissions.

8. The respondents based their stand for rejection of family pension on three counts, one is that the petitioner is not eligible for the same on account of her age factor in the light of the G.O.Ms.No.152, Finance (HR.III- Pension) Department dated 25.11.2019. Secondly, on account of the fact that her name as reflected in the service register of the Government servant was 5 not matching with her present name and thirdly, that the pension has been sought on the basis of disability certificate certifying the disability at 100% was not furnished at the time of filing the application.

9. From the record, it appears that the petitioner’s father during his lifetime in 2011 and after his wife’s demise requested the authorities to include the name of the petitioner Smt. Y.Renuka Devi for grant of family pension. The same was returned by the office of the 2nd respondent stating that she would be eligible only after the lifetime of the Government servant. However, after his demise on being applied for the pension, it was rejected citing G.O.Ms.No.152 Finance (HR.III-Pension) Department dated 25.11.2019 vide the impugned proceedings.

10. By the date of passing of the impugned orders, the G.O. was set aside by this Court vide order dated 05.03.2021 in W.P.No.19671 of 2020 & batch. Against the order passed in the writ petition, a Writ Appeal was filed in W.A.No.632 of 2021. In the said Writ Appeal, the Division Bench of this Court refused to suspend the order passed in the Writ Petition, and granted one month time to comply with the order passed in the Writ Petition.

11. In the light of the orders passed by this Court, the respondents are not justified in rejecting the case of the petitioner on the pretext of the G.O.Ms.No.152 dated 25.11.2019. After setting aside of the G.O.Ms.No.152, the 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 11.09.2022 stating that after careful examination of the circumstances, Government orders to adhere to the position prevailing based on instructions issued prior 6 G.O.Ms.No.152, Finance (HR.III-Pension, GPF) dated 25.11.2019 read with Memo No.34021/70/HR.V/2018, dated 11.07.2018 subject to outcome of the Writ Appeal No.632 of 2021. As a result, the instructions issued vide G.O.Ms.No.315, Finance (Pension-I) Department, dated 07.10.2020 read with G.O.Ms.No.353, Finance (Pension-I) Department, dated 04.12.2020 holds good.

12. It relevant referG.O.Ms.No.315, Finance (Pension-I) Department, dated 04.12.2020,particularly Para4 (A), which reads as follows:

4. After careful consideration of the matter, Government decided to accept the above recommendations of the Pay Revision Commission and hereby order that:- (A) The eligible beneficiaries of family pension are divided into two categories as shown below; namely:- Category-1: (i) Widow or widower, upto the date of death or remarriage whichever is earlier. (ii) (a) Son/daughter (including widowed daughter) upto the date of his/her marriage / remarriage or till the date he/she starts earning or till the age of 25 years, whichever is the earliest. (b)Sons/daughters who physically/mentally disabled throughout their life subject to the conditions specified therein. Category-II: (i) Unmarried/ widowed/ divorced daughter, not covered by Category-1 above, upto the date of marriage/remarriage or till the date she starts earning or upto the date of death whichever is the earliest. (ii) Parents, who were wholly dependent on the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee has left 7 behind neither a widow nor a child. Family pension to dependent parents will continue till the date of death.

13. The doubt entertained by the respondents with regard to the name of the petitioner as it reflected in the list of family members in the service register of the deceased Government servant and in the subsequent applications of the petitioner, is highly misplaced on account of the fact that the petitioner’s fatherhimself had requested for grant of family pension in the name of Smt. Y.Renuka Devi, daughter of the Government Servant.

14. The petitioner’s father had asked for grant of family pension in favour of his daughter Smt. Y.Renuka Devi, having regard to the same, the doubt entertained by the respondents as to the identity of the petitioner is misplaced. Having regard to the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.19671 of 2020, the order impugned is liable to be set aside since the same is based on G.O.Ms.No.152 dated 25.11.2019 that has already been set aside by this Court vide order in W.P.No.19671 of 2020. In the light of the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 11.09.2022,the instructions issued under G.O.Ms.No.315, Finance (Pension-I) Department, dated 07.10.2020,would apply. In the light of G.O.Ms.No.315, Finance (Pension-I) Department, dated

07.10.2020, the petitioner is entitled to the family pension under Clause (ii) (b) of Category - I the said G.O. The respondents are therefore directed to sanction family pension to the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.315, Finance (Pension-I) Department, dated 07.10.2020. 8

15. With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Dated: 31.03.2026 ANI ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA 9 292 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO:35335 of 2022 Dated: 31.03.2026 ANI