M. Balamani v. ':: j:::ffi ";JRoad

Petition under section i sl cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to Direct the respondents herein to sanction and pay monthry famiry pension of the deceased M. chinnaiah to the petitioner notwithstanding with the proceedings of the 1st respondent vide Memo. No.1O88/ApHB/MBNR/East/2001 dated 03-02- 2001 every month to the petitioner immediatery, pending disposar of the main writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KUSURI SAWANARAYANA counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 & 3: SRr A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAo, sc FoR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 4: - The Court made the following: ORDER TSHB { I r.1 7\ HEHON'BLES T RI JUSTICENAGES HBHE TITION No.76 16 of 20L7 PE ORDER: The case of the petitioner is that her husband i'e'' Late M.Chinnaiah' was employed as Class IV r'rnder the administrative control of the 1't respondent' initially on a daily wage basis from February 1983' SubsequentlY' he worked as a-n NMR (Nominal Muster Roll) worker from 17.O6.lg84unti1 his services were regularized as a Watchman under the work-charged establishmen:' ude proceedings dated 30.12' 1989' While in service' the petitioner's husband was murdered by two individuals and the accused were later convicted and sentenced to life imPrisonment bY t}le V Additional Sessions Judge' Mahabubnagar' uide judgment 192 of 2OOO' dated 14.10'2004 in Sesstons Following his death, the petitioner submitted Pension PaPers Hou.ever, the lst resPondent uide Case No seeking familY Pensron ' returned the aPPlication, stating memo dated 03.O2.2O01, t]lat the petitioner's husbancl had not completed 1O years of qualifying service as required under G'O'Ms'No'212' dated 29 .O3.lg7g . This conclusion \\'as based solely on his regularlze4t service beginning from 30' 12' 1989' without \ \ i I i I I I I i I i I I 1 I ' I I 2 considering his prior service from FebruarJr 19g3. The petitioner contends that if the total service rendered by her husbaad from l9g3 is tal<en into account including his daily wage and NMR service, he would have completed over 15 Years of service. Despite several representations requesting reconsideration of her claim for family pension, no action has been taken by the respondents to date. Hence, this Writ Petition

2. Heard Sri Kusuri Sat5ranarayana, iearned counsel for the petitioner and sri A.K.Jaya prakash Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos. I and 3. perused the record,

3. Learned counsel for the pedtroner, making submissions on the lines of writ affidavit had filed a memo dated 12.06.2025, relying upon the Judgmenr passed b,v the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.p.No.25 260 of 2002, W.P.No.82Ol of 2016 arrd W.p.No.9438 of 2O2O; and also the Order of this Court in W.p.No.339 16 of 2OlZ; and submits that the subject matter of the present rvnt petition is covered by the said Orders, and therefore similar orders may be passed in the present writ petition also. The operative I J J i i I i i I i EI '--l 3 portion of the order dated, O2.O2'2022 in W.P.No'9438 of 2O2O reads as under: "Resultantlg, tle uit petition is allotued ond the respondents are directed to take into account th'e sruice rendered bg the lusband of the petitioner uith effect from 01.O8.1998 to O5.12.2OO9 for the purpses of qtalifuing seruice, pension os uell as other tenninal dues. T'le exercise of passirtg ne(Pssary orders or grantirq the terminol dues/ pension/ arrears of pension be onchtded utithin a peiod of four months from the date of rcceipt of a certifred copy of this order'" Learned counsel for respondent No.l filed a counter

4. alfrdavit stating that petitioner's husband had rendered 9 years 5 months and 9 days of service as a Watchman under the work-charged establishment. As per G'O'Ms'No'212, dated 29.03.L979, all work-charged employees, who have completed 1O years of total service, are eligible for benefits such as leave, pension, etc.

5. He further stated that since petitioner's husband did not complete 1O years of service, he was not eligible for family pension. Cons.equently, the family pension papers submitted by petiLioner were returned on O3.O2.20O I It is also stated that there is no provision in the rules to grant an exemption for th&e with less than 10 years of service in order to extend pensionary benefrts. Therefore, it is contended that ) l i l I I I I I i I I 1 l I I I I 4 petitioner's claim for family pension is without merit ald is liable to be dismissed.

6. It may be noted that the order appointing petitioner's husband on temporarJr basis is certainly not in dispute and therefore, once he served on temporary basis from Februaqz, 1983 to 30.12.1989, the said period has to be taken into consideration for purposes of pension and other retiremental dues, in the light of the judgment delivered in identical case by the Division Bench of the unified High Court for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.8201 of 2016. 7 . Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel and in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.9438 of 2020, this Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondents to take into account the service rendered by the husband of the pe titioner with effect from Februar5r, 1983 to 30.l2.l999 for rhe purposes of qualifying service, pension as well as other terminal dues and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand accordingly closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above' Witness THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL' on this FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETU OAi OT JUNE TWO THOU;;]i; ET.TO TVTEHW F|VE // S D'. A.SR EENIVASA REDDY TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S I SECTION OFFICER u sing Board, To

2. J 4 5 6 7 Telangana State Housing Board, Gruhakalpa, M'J. Road, The Executive Engineer (Housi ns), Telangana Sta Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnaga r District-509001 ineer, The Chief Eng erabad -500 001 NampallY , Hyd Chai rman & Housing The Vice- Board, HYd The Secretary, Secretariat, at One CC to SR one CC to SRI A Two CD CoPies erabad-500001 State of Telang"na, Housing Board Department' Telangana Hvderaba IKUSURI SATYANARAYANA, Advocate I .K.JAYA PRAKAS H RAO, SC FOR TSH B toPUCl d-500 002. OPUCI Commissioner, Telangana State Housing PS T HIGH COURT DATED:2010612025 ORDER tfVP.No.7616 ot 2017 ,,.::1 ,/ o?' ,-:::_-___- { i-r E s 14 }\\\._ c;,i,.rr., iii-) 0 3 sEP 206 \. ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I