The High Court · 2025

Petition Under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in jupport of the petition, the High Cour-t may be pleased to direct the responden' authorities to forthwith sanction the Family Pension to the petitioner herein pertaining to her late husband Sri A.Satyendra Kumar, who expired on 22-4-1998 while in service, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI KUSURI SATYANARAYANI, Counsel for the Resgrondents : GP FOR SERVICES -lll The Court made the 1'ollowing ORDER THE HON'BLE MRS. ]USTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.2246O OF 2O21 ORDER: Heard Sri Kusuri Satyanarayana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-Ill appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2, The oetitioner approached the Court seekino praver as under: "...to issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the 2"d respondent in issuing necessary orders for sanction of the Family Pension pertaining to the late husband of the petitioner viz., A.Satyendra Kumar inspite of the letter of the 3'd respondent bearing Lr.No.EC L/SEK/2018-19 dt. 25-6-2018 followed by the written representations dt.29-3-2019 and t5-4-2027 and personal visits as being illegal arbitrary unjust and u nconstitutiona I and to grant..."

3. The case of the oetitioner, in brief, as oer the averments made in the affidavlt filed bv the oetitioner in suooort of the oresent Writ Petition is as under: 2 SN,J w.P.No.22460 of 2O21 i) fhe petitioner's husband, late A. Satyendra Kumar, worked as a Junior Assistant in the office of the 4th respondent from 1964 to 1975. While in service, he expired on 22.04.I99a, leaving behind the pet.itioner and petitioner's children as his legal heirs. ii) After petitioner's husband's death, the petitioner obtained the death certificate and submitted an application on 13.03.2018 to the 3'd respondent for sanction of family pension. The 3'd respondent forwarded a detailed report and proposal, including the service records of the deceased employee, to the 2nd respondent. iii) In response, the 2nd respondent, vide a letter dated

25.06.2018, requested that necessary instructions be issued to enable f'urther processing and sanction of the family pension. The petitioner made further representations on

29.03.2019 and 15.04.2021, but no action was t,aken by the respondents. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent Nos.2 and 3, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. |![U:SED THE RECORp: I i . sN,l W.P.No.22460 of 2021 A) The relevant portion of No.ECI/SEK/2O18-19 dated 25.06.2O18 of the letter respondent No.3 addressed to the resDondent No.2 is extracted hereunder: "With reference to the above, I submit that Smt A.Prabhavathi, w/o late A. Satyendra Kumar, lunior Assistant (expired on 22.04.1998) has submitted an application al6ng with pension proposals for sanction of family pension along with copies of death certificate and legal-heir certificate in respect of her husband. She also represented in her application that, her husband was expired on 22.O4.L998 and she submitted application for death benefits and pension on 01.12.1999. but the same were not yet been sanctioned as she was not acquainted with the knowledge of official procedures being a house wife. In this connection, it is submitted that as verified from the service register of deceased employee the following service particulars are found. 1) Date of joining 2) Probation completed by 3) Service verification entries 4) Leave availed entries upto 5) Total service rendered 6) Pay particulars -O2.11.1964 as Junior Assistant (SR. Pg.No.4 -01.11.1966 AN (SR pg.No. 16) -02.1.1.1964 to 2A.02.197 4 -31.01.1975 -O2.11. 1964 to 3 1.01. 1975 ( 10 years 2 months) - Basic pay Rs.28ol-w.e.f. 7) Date of retirement (if alive) -3O.04.2OO4

19.03.7974 in RPS 1974 scale: 250-10-430 4 SN,J W.P.No.2246O of 2021 As mentioned above, the service veri 'ication was done upto 28.02.1974 and leave availed entries upto 31.01.1975. Almost, he has renrlered 10 years 2 months of service. iurther where abouts are not known because entries are mace in Service Register. Since then he neither applied for further leave, nor joined duty. It seems to b3 his willful absence to duty. After his absconding to duty, almost 24 years 11 months later, the applicant Smt. A. Prat,havathi has submitted applicaticn on 01.12.1999 for death benefits. And after 19 years 11 months she again submitted alother application for pension and death benefits. In view of the above, I herewith submit the service register, applicatic'n and pension proposals of the applicant and request the Chief Engineer (R&B) Ad mn,& QC, Hyderabad to kindly examine the above casr: and issue necessary instructions to this offi,:e, for favour of taking further necsssary action in the matter." DISCUSSIO.]I AN D CONCLUSION :

5. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, despite submitting detailed representations whlch were acknowledge,i by the offices of the respc - dents on 29.03.2019 and 15.04.2021, seeking sanctior of family pension and other benefits, including arrears with effect from 23.04.1998, and continuation of monthly family pension payments, no action has been taken neither the 5 SN.J w.P.No.22460 of 2021 representation dated 15.04.2021 addressed to the respondents nor the representation dated 29.03.2019 addressed to respondent No.4. which was acknowledged by the office of respondent No.4 on 29.03.2019, has been acted u pon.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly submits that the petitioner, W/o. late A.Satyendra Kumar, lunior Assistant who had expired on 22.04,7998, had submitted an application along with pension proposals for sanction of family pension along with copies of death certificate and legal heir certificate in respect of petitioner's late husband. The petitioner also represented in her application that the husband of the petitioner had expired on 22.04.L998 and hence, the petitioner had submitted application for death benefits and pension on 01.12.1999, however, the same had not been sanctioned as the petitioner was not acquainted with the knowledge of official procedures being a house wife.

7. Learned counsel appearinq on behalf of the er submi s tha view of t ec 6 sN,l w.P.No.22460 0f 2021 proposals _ of resoondent No,3 ad dressed to respondent No.2 vide Letter No. ECI sEl t( / 20 18- 19 dated 2l;,cr6.2018 in favour of the Detitior'-,r a nd on perusal of the same it is evident that l:he service reqister ilnd the petiti ner's a DD licat:ion dated

13.03.2011t, alonq with the pension Drop()sals, were forwarded to Administra,tion and O.C, Chief Enoinee. (R&B). Hv d era bad reo u estino examination of the issue and issuance o1' necessary instruction s to enable further action. However, no action hacl been taken in pursuance of {:he specific directions issued vide the said letler dated 25.06.20113 bv respondent No.3 to the respondent No.2

8. A bare perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated

29.03.201', addressed to respondent No.4, requesting sanction crf family pension following the demise of petitioner's husband on 22.O4.L998, late A Satyendra Kumar, .Iu nior Assistant in the office of thr: Exssullya Engineer, R&8, Khammam. Although petitioner,s 1 7 sN,l W.P.No.22460 of 2021 earlier representation dated 2L.OZ.2OLB duly enclosed all relevant pension papers in the prescribed proforma for sanction of pensionary benefits and onward submission to the Accountant General (A&E), Telangana, Hyderabad for authorization, no steps had been taken by the respondents to sanction the said family pension, thereby causing serious hardship to the petitioner. In spite of the clear proposals submitted in favour of the petitioner dated

25.06.2018 by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2, and the petitioner's detailed representation dated

29.03.2019, which was acknowledged by the office of respondent No.4 on 29.O3.2019 itself, no action had been initiated as on date and the matter had been kept pending for more than four years. In view of the same, this Court opines that the petitioner is entitled for grant of relief as sought for in the present writ petition.

9. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION: 8 SN,J W.P.No.22460 of 2O21 a ) The aforesaid facts and circumstanr;es of the ca se, b) The submissioFs made bv the leafned counsel aopearinq ,cn behalf of the oetitioner and thC_leafned Assistant Government. Pleader for Serylees:l_f,I appearinq !n behalf of the resoondents, The 'arrit oetition is dis posed of, directinq resoo nd e nt No.2-th e Chief Enqineer (R&ts), Administral: ton ando. c. H derabad to co irsider the petitloner s reo uest for sanction of familv ,:,ension in resi€ct Ef petitioner's late husband, A,liatvendra Kumar as indicated in the letter of respondent No.3 vide Lr. No.ECI/SED /2OL8-L9 dated ::5.O6.2018 addresse d to the 2nd resoondent and pass a p propriate reasoned orders on the Detitioner's representation dated 21.O2.2O18 dulv c nsiderinq the o r:titioner's other re resentations dated 29.03.2019 and

15.04.2021 and examininq the relevant d qcg meqts submittecl t,v the oetitio ner rn s Doort of p,: titioner's ! 9 sN,l w.P.No.2246O of 2021 case in accorda nce to law in conformi tv urith the atu ra I ustice b n ortu n it of personal hearinq to the Detitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copv of this order and dulv communicate the decision pertaininq to the request o the petitioner for sanction of familv oension to the petitioner to the petitioner herein. However, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// D/- MOHD. ISMAIL PUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER ent, Secretariat, State To

1. The Principal Secretary, Roads and Buildings Depa of Telangana at HYderabad.

2. The Chief Engineer (R and B), Administration and QC, Telangana, Hyderabad.

3. The Superintending Engineer, (R_and B) Circle, Khammam. 4. The Exbcutive Engineei, (R and B), Khammam Khammam District 5. Two CCs to GP FoR SERVICES-Ill, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

6. O'ne CC to SRI KUSURI SATYANARAYANA, Advocate [oPUC] 7. Two CD Copies SA PVL bil, C.C. TODi\\' ',.1i-I (.x\\ .) * I I t{0i, zffiil HIGH COURT DATED:2410912025 ORDER WP.No.2246tt of 2021 I I I t DISPOSING If,F THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. (rc \, in1 a)\