The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri N.C. Pavan Kumar Counsel forthe Respondents: Sri A. Chandra Shaker ( SC FOR NPDCL) The Court made the following: ORDER a THE HOII'BLE SMT. WSTICE T.MADHI VI DEVI COT{TEMPT CASE NO. 997 OF 2O25 ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed a1[, ging willful disobedience of the directions of th r Court in W.P.No.26379 of 2021, dated 26.O3.21) >.1, by the respondents and is seeking punishment br the sajd disobedience under the Contempt of Cour -r Act and to pass such other order or orders in the interes I of jr-rstice

2. The petitioner had challenged tlt proceedings dated 3 I .O I .2O20 rejecting her claim of ,: ,mpassionate appointment and this Court had directed thc respondents to reconsider the case of tJle petitioner for 1;r ant of family pension provided she fulfills other eligi r lity criteria Against the order of this Court, the responds rts liled Writ Appeal No.925 of 2024 and the DMsion : ench of this Court, after considering tlre rejection rrder dated 3I.01.2020, observed that the appellants th: <:in have not examined the case of the respondent No. 1 herein as to 2 whether she was totally dependent on the deceased pensioner, consequent upon the death ofher husband and that the rejection order is a cr5rptic order and no reasons were assigned as to why the family pension is being denied to the respondent No.l and the Division Bench therefore was not inclined to interfere with the order passed by this Court and the Writ Appeal was accordingly dismissed.

3. However, the respondents failed to comply with the directions of this Court and reconsider the case of the petitioner and therefore, this Contempt Case has been hled.

4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has frled a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents No. I and 2, stating that consequent to the directions of this Court, he has examined as to whether the petidoner was totally dependent or not on her mother and has passed speaking orders dated 24.O1.2025 and therefore, complied with the directions of this Court. It is stated that the petitioner was not dependent on the ! I i I I ! I . I I i t I t { i ! ! : I i I i I ! I i l I I I I { j i I o 3 pensioner, Sri Goverdhanam Venkatararnal I Charyrlu, , the father of the petitioner at the time of his r.eath i.e., on

12.O5.2O12 and after tJ'e death of thg pensiorl r, the family pension was granted to the wife of 1l e deceased employee/pensioner and that at the time of gr rnt of family pension to the mother of the petitioner also, t re petitioner was not dependent. It is stated that tJle widov ed daughter or unmarried daughter would become eligilr e for family pension only when the se i.e., the iuife of the i pensioner, is not alive at the time bf his deat r. Therefore, the respondents have relied upon Rule 5O ol the pension Rules, which was duly amended vide G.O.Ms. \ r.315, dated 07 .1O.2O|O, in support of their contentio r s that "the widoued/ diuorced daughler uould. be eligible 1r tle family pension, prouided the spouse predeceases ) e penstoner and sons/ daughters referred to in categ: g-I become inetigible for the famitg pension.'

5. It is further stated that Rule 54 ,f the Rules provides that it is open to the Government to ,l spense with 4 or rel€rx the requirements by recording the reasons in writing and subject to the exceptions and conditions as it may conside. .r"""""rry for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. It is stated that the petitioner,s father was Junior Accounts Officer of TSNpDCL when he retired from service on 31.03.2004 on attaining the age of superannuation and thereafter, he was sanctioned with service pension and after his.death on 12.O5.2012, his wife Smt.Goverdhalam Lakshmi Thayaru became the family pensioner and on 30.0T.2016, she also passed away. It is submitted that the petitioner,s husband passed away in a road accident on 17.07.2015 and she became dependent on the family pensioner only thereafter. The respondents thus supported the rejection order and submitted that there is no disobedience of the orders of this Court.

6. karned Standing Counsel appearing lor the respondents also relied upon the order of this Court in W.P.No.33 of 2023, dated 14.02.2025, wherein the Co_ .) 5 ordinate Bench of this Court has considerec tfre similar circumstances and has held as under: Para-6: On perusal of the record, it is euc the petitioner's father, u.ta u.nrked as cr Superintendent in respondent No.l/office, po-ss < on O4.O5.1986. Thereafier, the petitioner's eldet u-tas appointed as a Junior Assl:stanf on Nmp 7 grounds ond familg pen sion uas sandione ) petitioner's mother. TLe petitioner's fuisbanct. auag on 05.09.2007. Therebg, the petitioner children became dependenl on her mothen Houl petitioner's mother passed auag on 26 I Subsequentlg, the petitioner made an applic respondent No.1 on 24.02.2022 reqtesting to gn release of Jamily pension. Hou)euer, tte resl rejected her request uide impugned- meml 23.O8.2022. Para 7: According to CategoryJ of G.O.Ms dated O7.1O.2OLO, son/ daughter (including t daughter) is eligible for pension upto the date o1 marriage/ remarrioge or till the date le/ slrt earning or till the age of 25 gears, uthidteuer is <t per the aforesatd G.O., a uidou.ted or diwrced t is eligtible for familg pension if she u.tas uhollg c < on the pensioner at the time of his/ h-er deattt .,nt that Olfice 7 au.tag brother ;sionate to the passed tnd her uer, the

3.2021. *ion to tnt and tndents No.315, idoued his/ her starfs rlier. As aughter cend.ent Para-S: In the present case, altLaugh the 7 utas dependent on her fatfler at tLrc time of hi; she got married subsequentlg. Further, tle pz cloim is not uolid under G.O.Ms.No.31:1, 07.1O.2010, as it specifies thot familg pension $ ztitioner demise, itioner's d-ated granted 6 \ r\' onlA to a uidoued datglXer, uln uns d,epend.en{. on the pensioner before his/ lrcr deatL Further, the petitioner got monied. afier the dembe of her father and- she becsm.e a uidout in 2OO7, long afier her father's d.eath in 1986. Tterefore, the petitbner does not meet the eligibilitg requirem.ents for familg pensinn und.er G.O.Ms.No.315, dated O7.1O.2010. Therefore, this Court is of tte uieu-t thot tle rejection of ler claim by respond.ent No.1 is in ocard-an@ uith the prouisions of this G.O. Para-9: Fltrtfer, the Circular Memo, dated 19.07.2022, specifies tlnt familg pension is onlg granted to o u.tid.oued or diuorced dauglter if her spouse's death or diuore occurred. before the pensioner's deatlL In the instant case, the petitbner's lusband passed anuag in 2OO7, ofier ler father's tfuath in 1986, making her ineligible under thb Rule. Additbnallg, Rule 5O of the Telangana Reui-sed Pension Rtles, 198O, states that familg pen-sion is onlg paga.ble to a uidoued doughter u.tho uas d-ependent on the pensioner before lis death. Since the petitioner got manied afier ler fatlrcr's demise, she u.tas not a d.ependent and. is therefore ineligible. Furthermore, the petitioner's application for famtly pension u.tas maie in February 2022, uhereas the releuant ciranlor, dated 19.07.2022, u)as issued subsequentlg- As the proubions of the ciranlar uere not in elfect at tle time of the ptitioner's application and olso giuen that the petitioner does rwt meet the speci,fic eligibilitg citeria outlined- th.erein, the circulor uould not haue a beaing on tle out@m,e of the present case. Therefore, it can be infe:rred. that the rejectton of the ,.1 1 I t I i I l t o 7 petitioner's reElest for family pension b in a<:t utith the applicable Rules and guidelines. trdane Para-l0: In uieu.t of the aboue mode dis this Court is of tte uieu that there are nn meri:, Wit Petition. TlLerefore, this Writ Petition is lial dismissed. x,assron, ; in the t.e to be He therefore, prayed that the Conterr pt Case be closed.

7. Learned counsel for the wr:t petitioner, however, submitted that the case of the petiti rner has not been considered by the respondents in spit: of -specific directions ol this Court.

8. Having regard to the rival content ons and the material on record, this Court f,rnds that ('r . the earlier occasion, the case of the petitioner was not r:, ,nsidered for family pension solely on the ground that shr: is a married daughter ol the deceased employee. In vieu thereof, tltis Court had directed the respondents to consi ler her case for family pension, provided she fullills o11 er eligibility criteria. The respondents have now examined rer case and have observed that she does not fulhll the oth:r conditions \ \ a of dependency on the pensioner at the time qf his death and have passed the rejection orders dated 24.01.2025. This Court is therefore of the opinion tl.at the petitioner, if aggrieved by the said order, has to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings and there is no disobedience of the directions of this Court.

9. The Contempt Case is accordingly closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

10. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD/.T.VIJAY KUMAR DEPUW REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER ,/TRUE COPY// To,

1. One CC to Sri N.C. Pavan Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri A. Chandra Shaker (SC FOR NPDCL) pPUCI 3. Two CD Copies Kam/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:3011012025 ) ORDER CC.No.997 of 2025 h' o()r -.-,.1-''. o"1 t i: Si,^:tc vt' 1 i {IiF 2{]/F * t I lTC CLOSING THE CC '.t