A Padma v. sE/oP/KNR/DE(TyPo/JAo/si/J1lD.No.'1079 r21

Judgment

1. Northern Power Distribution Company. of Telangana Limited, Rep. by its -- Chairman and Manaqinq Director. poihana Aroltorrm. nanirnnbp"i, Warangal.

2. Superintending Engineer, Operation, TSNpDCL Karimnagar Circle. 3. Divisional Engineer, Operation, TSNpDCL Karimnagar Circle. ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 o'f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High may be pleased to issue an order or direction or a writ, more particularty one in the niture of Writ of l/andamus declaring the Nrlemo Nos. sE/oP/KNR/SAO/Ao(E)/AAO/JAo(pEN)/sA/D No iOZSlro, Dt22_03_ 2017 and sE/oP/KNR/DE(TyPo/JAo/si/J1lD.No.'1079 r21, Dt.26-oB- 2021 issued by the 2nd Respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner for sanction of famiry pension relating to her deceased father A.Narayana Reddy (Retired UDC) as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the provisions of rhs Terangana Revised Pension Rules, 1980, consequeniry direct the respondents to sanction fdmily pension in favor of the petitioner 'cJurt lA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under section .15'1 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 herein to consider the Represenlations Dt.06-10-2021 and 13-12- 202.1 submitted by the petitioner for sanction of family pension in favor of the petitioner "l:.!;;:::F-=Fr ' :f .// Counsel for l:he F,etitioner: SRl. HARI KISHAN KUDIKF,LA coun-sel for rfie F espondents: sRr CHANDRA SEKHAItA RAc AKAVARAPU SC FOR TGNPDIC I.. The Court made the following: ORDER a,. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.9281 OF 2023 ORDER: Heard Sri Hari Kishan Kudikala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri A.Chandra Shekhar, learned Standing Counsel for TGNPDCL appearing on behalf of respondents. 2- The Detitioner aDDroached this Court seekinq the praver as under: "... to issue an order or direction or a writ, more particularly one ln the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo No's. SE/oP/KN R/SAo/A0(E)/AAO/JA0(PEN )/SA/D. No. 1 0 t5/L6, Dt.22-03-2017 and SE/OP/KNR/ DE(T)/PO/IAO/S1/J1lD.No.1079/21, Dt.26-08- 2021 issued by the 2nd Respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner for sanction of family pension relating to her deceased father A.Narayana Reddy (Retired UDC) as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the provisions of The Telangana Revised Pension Rules, 1980, consequently direct the respondents to sanction family pension in favor of the petitioner and to pass...."

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is a widowed daughter of A.Narayana Reddy, who served as Upper Division Clerk in the respondent organization and retired on 2 SN,] N p _9281_2023

31.07.199.:i. After petitioner's father's demise on [t5.03.2002, petition:) -'s xother received family pension Lrntil her death on

07.09.20.-!, The petitioner applied for family persion under Categorv I: . f Rule 50 of the Telangana Revisied Ferrsion Rules, 1980, l-lon,e,,er, the respondents rejected the app icartion of the petition:) - lflice, citing incorrect interpretation o'tre Rule 50 of the Telirrrga ra Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Aggrieved by the same, th:r 1:x:litioner filed the present writ petition PERUSED ..HE RECORD: Tj-r_re 1_r:levant oortion of the impuqned p.!:oceedinqs of 4, the rg.9p._9 ndent No.2 vide Memo sAo /AQ_LEj/AAO/JAO(PEN) /SA/ 22.O3.',.r_O77 addre ss ed o the resoondent No,3 herein is N-e.-s-E /OplKNR/ 5l_L5_ t extracted h ere u nder: '--he Divisional Engineer. Operatic,n. Kar mnagr ha:; sr.rL rnitted application of Smi. A. Parlm r w dowed darrlyh:r r of Late Sri. A. Narayana Reddv, E x-UDC servici, pensioner connection with PPO, t{o. 66/ 93 for sarr:ti::r ing family pension as alternate norn nee vlde ref : r'e Trr:c' 1tt cited above. ()n verification of her applical:ion a rd its en(: ()s 3 -s, it is observed that the service pens orrer Sri. Latr: A, Narayana Reddy. Ex-UDC retired cn j1.0 7.1993 3 5N,J wp _9281_2023 AN and expired on 05.03.2002. Subsequently his wife Smt. A. Madhuramma also availed family pension w.e.f. 06.03.2002 and she was also expired on 07.09.2015. It is to reiterate that the provisions contained under rule 50 of Ap Revised Rules 1980 as amended from time to time and as per the para 3(iii) of G.O.Ms.No.315, Finance (p.S.C.) Department, Dt: 07.10.2010 read with N.O.O. (CGM-HRD) Ms.No.430, Dt: 13.12.2010 read as bellow. Payment of family pension to widowed/divorced daughter, irrespective whether she became widowed' divorced daughter either before or after the retirement of employee, provided the spouse predecease the pensioner and sons/daughters become ineligible for the family pension; and While so, in this instance case. family pension after expiry of the deceased, the family pension was sanctioned to his spouse Smt. A, Madhuramma on O6.03.2OO2 and later she died on 07.O9.2015. Application along with its all enclosures received vide reference above cited is herewith returned. Therefore, the Divisional Engineer. Operation. Karimnagar is hereby instructed to reject and return the application its enclosures oF the applicant duly informing as above.,, 4 SN,J wtt_9287_2023 o ned pro-cclldiE-SS-gf Th(: rel 3va 5 vide Me moNo .sE/oP/ KNR/ the resB_qIdent No. DEfi) I PStJ).r-\O / S 1 / J 1 / D.No. 1079 / 2 1 datt:d -'26'O8' 202 1 the resoondent No.3 herein is t)xlIaetcd addresse-{. 1 hereundel 'r he attention of the Divisioncll E 19 neer, Operirt l r, Karimnagar is drawn to the rerfere rcrl 2nd citerl, rr,'trerein the application received for sranct on of fami '/ I )nsion to Smt.A.Padma, widowed dau;h:er of Later Sri.A,Narayana Reddy, Ex-UD(' (R€tired) P.PO,Nrr.66/A was rejected and it is reiterated th rt the pro'risi,::r-:; contained under rule 50 of AP Rovlsed Pensrrorr Fules 1980 as amended from timer t3 tine and as;rerr t.lrr: para 3(iii) of GO.Ms. No. 315, Finan':e (PSC) Det,art-renL, Dt:07-10-2010 read with NOO (CG[4'HRD) Ms.llo.410, Dt: 13-12-2010 is reproduced tere urrder: - //idowed/divorced daughter, irre:sFrective wht:thr:r ';he became widowed/divorced either tlelore or after tr,l retirement of employee is, eligible for family per:;ior provided the spouse predecease the persioner ancl sl)rsldaughters become ineligible for the family perr:ic'r ,:nd for this purpose, the existing pensic'ner in wh::;e :ases, their spouses are delcel;:sec and sor si cj,: rghters (including physically/Menially disabled chi rire r ) became Ineligible for the payment cf family perls ic)t'l l I l I .l I I l I i 5 5 N,J wp_9281_2023 In this instance case, the spouse of the pensioner as not predecease and family pension was paid to the spouse of pensioner Smt. A.Madhuramma, for the period from 06-O3-2OO2 to 07-O9-2O15 i.e., till her death. Accordingly, the applicataon of Smt.A.Padma, widowed daughter of Late Sri.A.Narayana Reddy, Ex-UDC (Retired) P.PO.No.56lA is rejected, as she is inetigible for family pension. In view of the above, the Divisional Engineer, Operation, Karimnagar is requested to inform the appticant accordingly and instruct the concerned to be more careful while submitting the application without thorough verification to this office in future.,,

6.7 he averm en ts made in the coun ter affidavi t filed on behalf of the resDo ndent No. 2 in oartic lar oaraqraoh Nos.g to 11 are extracted hereunder:

9. In reply to para No.6, 7 and g of the Affidavit, it is submitted that the representation of the petitioner was rejected since, the widowed daughter comes under category-ll and the family pension l.t instance was sanctioned to her mother who is alive at the time of sanctioning of family pension and comes under Category-1 of G.O.. The petitioner's representation would have been considered if her ! 6 SN,J w) 928L 2023 moth rr i, not alive at the time of sanctiln of lamily penriiln nore over the petitioner was not depr:r de:nt on her l';rtirrrr'. The petitioner again represent€rd or 10-11- 2\2al a nd the same was rejocted vide Merr:.',lo SE.OP.KNR. DE(T)' PO.IAO Sl.-l1.D.No. LOTI),:. Dt. 26-08-2021. :10. It is further submitted _tltlL the co n-t-e!!-t io n of the petitioner to consader-the case of p_eti_t ioner for altern ate nominee is _ a lst;t--not tena-b!.e--in this reoard it is submitted tha!,, itUEbiS case- af:er retirement Sri A.NaraYana Redg! was gralle-.!-oension and after his death his-wifq-alss orantgE-familv Dension and admittedlv petitioner deoendent and not cOVerred u nder G.9-.!1s...' No.31 Dt. 07-10-2010.

11. It is further submitted that, froln the abol,e srtated rule position it is thus clear that Sri A.Naravana Reddy retired from servicr:: on attarrniir g the age of superannuation and sr::rvice pensiorr was sanctioned to him. After lris dearth on O5..03-:lOO2 the family pension was released in ther naFre of his wife Smt. A.Madhurarlma arrd she availed family pension till her death ie upto O7- O9..21015. It is further submitted that the G.0.Ms No.315, Dt. 07-10-2O10 makers it is; very clear that a dependent is entitled for 1i'amily pensiott only in the case where the spouse of the employee is predeceasers. It is furthe:r subrnitted l / ,... 7 SN,J wp_9281_2023 that in this case after retirement Sri A Narayana Reddy was granted pension and after his death his wife also granted family pension and admittedly petitioner is not dependent and not covered under G.O.Ms.No.315, Dt. O7-10-201O." D ISCUSSION AND CON CLUSION:-

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner placing reliance on material documents dated 21.10.2020 and Ietter dated 12.1I.2019 of the Mandal Educational Officer, Athmakur Mandal, Warangal District addressed to the prl. Accountant General (A & E), Telangana, Hyderabad wherein, under similar circumstances, family pension was sanctioned to the widowed dependant daughter of late Sri Mohd. Hafeez, Ex- Head Master, Primary School, Harijan Wada, Akkampet, Warangal District, contends that the petitioner herein is also entitled for the similar relief and the respondent No.2 had illegally rejected petitioner's request for sanction of Family pension relating to petitioner's deceased father one A.Narayana Reddy, retired UDC vide impugned memos dated 22.03.2OL7 and 26.08.2021.

8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the case relied upon by the petitioner 8 SN,J \ i p_9281_2023 pertainir'r(l :,) widowed dependant daughter lYs.l'iht,marunnisa Begum, l)lo Sri Mohd. Hafeez would not apply t(' t1e present Electricil\'[)cpartment and the petitioner claimed tlre relief as of right re=er-rir (l to the said case, but the same is not lermissible in view of :he specific guidelines issued vicle G.O Ms.No.315 Finance (')r,nsion-I) Department dated 07.10 2(r10 which pertains tc categorization of family pension bt:nefi:iaries and in particul,:r'. le arned Standing Counsel placed reliarrce 1o Clause 4 (E)(i).' 9 The relevant oortion of Clause 4(E)(i) of G.O.Ms,flsr-. 315 Finance (Pension-I) DeDartm

07.10.e0_1.Q is extracted hereu n der l 'rhe widowed/divorced daughter, i'rr:sl)ective whe:h.:r she became widowed/divorced ei:her be =ore or aft:r' ':t- e retirement of the employee i1;, 'rl gi)le for far. ily rension, provided the spouse predecear;e the pensior-"r and sons/daughters referred to irr cat(lgory-I above tecome ineligible for the Family Perrsicn,"

10. Ta_ki.{L,l into consideration: a) The ,a':oresaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The ;ubmissions made by the learnerl counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and thre learned I i I I : ; l 9 SN,J wp _928!_2023 Standing Counsel for TGNpDCL appearing on behalf of respondents, c) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 in particular para Nos.9 to 1l(referred to and extracted above) d) Clause 4(E)(i) of G.O.Ms.No.315 Finance (pension-I) Department dated 07.10.2010 (referred to and extracted above) e) The fact that Sri A. Narayana Reddy, petitioner,s late father was granted pension and after his death petitioner's later mother was also granted family pension and since petitioner is not dependent and not covered under G.O.Ms.No.315, dated 07.1O.201O. This Court opines that the petitioner is not entifled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition, and the present Writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 10 5 N,J \i3 9281 2023 As z :,r:1uel, the miscellaneous petitions, if anv, )ending in the Writ Petit on shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.V. KAVITHA DEF,UTY REGIST $,ECTtoN oFFtcER To, One C(- tr r SRI HARI KISHAN KUDIKALA Advocate ['f PU']l One C(: tl riRl. CHANDRA SEKHARA RAO AKAV,AR.AF'U Advocate [OPUC] 1 2 Two CI- C r ries 3 KKS BS i I t I HIGH COUITT DATED:27111312025 CC TODAY --- _.4 -- .,.,-FB: /ar. iT4 re' /,(/t ),) ,-) r1,.\ 13 ,tiiit 295 t ORDER WP.No.9281 ot 2023 I I i I I I I I I I I i I DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT'CoSTS 4 (1 ^ r) t