A.Venugopal v. State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned No Earning Member Certificate dated 271912024 issued by the Tahsildar, Hunwada Mandal, Mahabubnagar District in so far as mentioning that lam Employee-Private is concerned and its consequential passed by respondent in Proc.No. PM3lP12lllllK1064l200B-011366322, dated 31212025 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for sanction of family pension as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently the sth set-aside the same and hold that the petitioner is entitled for sanctioning of family \ ,ll pension in terms of tho orders issued in G.O.Ms No 3l5, Finance Department' dated 7l1ol2o1 0 after duly issuing revised No earning certificate based on certificate issued in Fil€, No D|1211t2024, dated 27 t9t2o24 with all consequential benefits. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to direct the respondents to issue revised No Earning Member certificate to the petitioner based on cerlificate issued in File No. Dt121112024, daled 271912024 SA as to draw famrly pensirn rn terms of G.o.Ms.No. 315, Finance, daled 711012010' pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A.TIRUPATHI GOUD Counsel for the Resporndents No.1to4 : GP FOR SERVICES I CounselfortheRespondentsNo.5:SRIM.MURALIKRISHNA'SCFORPAG The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.6848 OF 2025 ORDER Heard Sri A. Tirupathi Goud, learned counsel for the petltioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-I for respondent Nos.1 to 4, and Sri M. Murali Krishna, learned Standing Counsel for the Principal Accountant General, for respondent No.5. Perused the materia I on record.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner's father, late A. Kurmaiah, worked in the Education Department for approximately 33 years and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 29.02.2008, as a School Assistant (Telugu) in Z.P.H.S. Nancharla, Mohammadabad Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. Upon his retirement, the petitioner's father was sanctioned pension and other retirement benefits. After his demise on 24.09.2019, the petitioner's mother, Smt. A. Laxmamma, was sanctioned family pension. However, Smt. A. Laxmamma passed away on 04.0L.2024.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner, who suffers from a permanent disability of Right Lower Limb Impaired reach due to Post Polio Residual Paralysis wrth 72o/o disability, submitted a representation to the Tahsildar, Hunwada Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, \\ 2 requesting an urremployment certificate'to avait the family pension. The Tahsildar issued an Unemployment Certificate vide File No.D/121 lt'2024, dated 27.09.2024, and an Unmarried CertiFicate on the same date, confirming that the petitioner is un'married and unemployed.

4. On 10.01 .2025, the petitioner applied for the sanction of the family pension, r:iting his disability and status as an unemployed person. Howevt:r, respondent No.5 issued the impugned Proceedings lto.PM3/Pl2/I1l/K1064/2008-0L/366322, dated 03.02.2025, wherein it is stated that the petitioner is a private employee, and the pension sanctioning authority had failed to verify the certificates issued by the Tahsildar. Consequently, respondent No.5 declared that the petitioner is not eligible for family pension as he was earning a livelihood. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, challenging the impugned proceedings issued by respondent No.5 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and contrary to the material on record. 5, Learned Go'yernment Pleader for the respondents placed on record the writte't instructions dated 11.03.2025, issued by the Tahsildar, Hanwaca Mandal, wherein it is stated that the petitioner is working as a Position Abhiyan Block Co-Ordinater on Outsourcing basis in the office oF the I.C.D.S (Urban) Mahabubnagar. 3 As the petitioner is not a regular employee and works on Outsourcing basis, it was earlier mentioned as "unemployee., in the report. There is no erroneous mention by this Office. He further placed on record the panchanama dated 18.11.2024, which also shows the petitioner's name in Column 3, where the profession is listed as a private job.

6. In the present Writ Petition, the petitioner has submitted an Unemployment Certificate dated 27.09.2024, issued by respondent No.3. A perusal of the said certificate shows that respondent No.3 issued the said certificate by showing that petitioner is not working in any Government/Public Sector/private Organization and in the same certificate he has shown the petitioner as a private employee. How both the certificates issued by the government authorities is the question? Either the petitioner should be shown as a private employee or he be shown as an unemployee. \ (

7. AS per the instructions obtained by the learned Government Pleader from the same respondent No.3, it is stated that the petitioner is not a regular employee. This has led to ambiguity regarding the petitioner's employment status, particularly in light of the fact that the petitioner is reported to be engaged in outsourcing employment. Moreover, the duration of the petitioner's outsourcing employment remains uncertain, with no clarity regarding its continuation. There is no dispute that petitioner is an unmarried 4 person In light of the contradictory information provided by 8. respondent No.:1, the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation to respondent No.3 seeking family pension within a pe.riod of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such representation being made by the petitioner, respondent No,3 shall duly reconsider the petitioner's eligibility for the family pension and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of six (6) weeks therefrom.

9. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.A.V.S. PRASAD GISTRAR A OFFICER To,

1. The Prrncrpal secretary, school Education Department, secretariat, state of Telangana, Hydr-.rabaci.

2. The Commrssrorrer and Director of School Education, State of Telangana, Hyderabad

3. The Tahsilar. Hunwada Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. 4. The Gazetted H€)admaster, Z.p.H.S. Nanchada, Mofiammadabad Mandal, Mahabubnagar [)rstrict

5. The Principal Acoountant Generar (A and E), state of rerangana, Hyderabad \_ 6 One CC to SRtA T|RUPATHI GOUD, Advocate. [OpUC] T Two CCs to GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION, High Court for the State of Tglangana. [OUT] 8 Two CD Copies 3, q otecc.{o 9rt r.l . utrv'zLJ (rishnor., Sc lg *t"4 BS * I ,f \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:1 310312025 \ \ ORDER WP.No.6848 ot 2O25 'P t(( .) \) -a Z il liA., ?t?5 * 1 DFs nr r r.$ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS cg4" YM I I I I