High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, in the nature of writ of certiorari cafling connected records incruding the retter No. Rc/ENC/E1t160171214r2016 dated 10.8.2017 of the 3rd respondent and Lr.No. ACE/SRSP/LLDtE2r2}st2o1z-18, dt-28.8.2o17 of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the craim of the petitioner for sanction of the family pension as illegal, improper, unjust and arbitrary and contrary to the provision of the ApRps Rules 19g0 and further declare that the petitioner is entitled for sanction of famity pension in view of the death of the deceased employee/ Pensioner if necessary taking in to consideration of the information given by the deceased pensioner through Annuar Verification certificates dt.o5-1 1-2013 and 09-12-2015 to the 4th respondent with all anears from the date of the death of the pensioner till to date and continue to pay famiry pension. =.-{.f' LA. NO: 1OF 2017(WPMP. NO:412 130F2017) 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 consider the case of the petitioner for sanction family pension pending disPosal of the W.P. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH.RAVINDER Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES'II The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 331 27 0F 2017 ORDER: Petitioner claims to be the second wife of iate Mohammed Ismail Ali Khan, who retired on 3l.OT .2OOT voluntarily. Following the death of his first wife on 22.ll.2OOg, Ismail A1i Khan married petitioner on O9.05.2013 under Muslim law. During their marriage, the deceased pensioner submitted annual verification certificates dated 05.1 1.2013 and

09.12.2015 to the 4ft respondent, cxplicitly revising the details of his spouse to include petitioner's name and their marriage date. These documents are presented as evidence that the deceased employee informed the authorities of his second marriage during his lifetime. While so, Mohammed Ismail Ali Khan passed away on 29.01.2017. Therefore, petitioner, as the surviving spouse and legal heir, applied for family pension on 1g.O5.20 17, submitting all relevant documents and notarized afhdavits from family members who raised no objection to petitioner receiving pension. She further submitted prescribed forms, bank account details and additional representations on 74.O7 .2017 arrd E=< )

24.07 .2017 . Dt:spite these efforls, the 3'd respc nde nL t hrough letterc]atc<l10,o8.2o17andthe2"drespondenlthroug]rletter dated 28.O8.2017 rejected her clajm, stating that no norlination was made during the deceased's lifetime for thc llctitiol er as a second wile to receive the pension They also citecl the iLbsence of departmcntal permission for the second marriage urrder the AP Civil Serzices (Conduct) Rules, 1964' Petitioner challenges these rejectiorls, emp rasizing that Rule :;O(6)(a)(i) of the APRPS Rules, 1980, provrdes for l i I I family perrsion to be shared equally among rrLultiple u'idows' had passecl au'ay It r,,'hich is not. applicable here as the first "l'ife is argued that Rule 25 of the AP Civil Services (Conduct) Rules' 1964, r,,"'hich requires prior permission for a second marriage' is i.rrelevatrt as }-rer marriage occurred after the f:rst wife 's death and q,as permissible under Muslim personai lau" She l-righlights that Section 255 of Mohammedan Law permits uL Muslinr man to have ultto four wives and that her marriage ''t'as valld uuder thcse plor,isiot-ts. l,earned counsel for petitioner Sri G Seen:r Kumar 2. relying on the judgments rn Rukhia Banu u' Cotntnissioner w l dnd Director oJ Agriculture, Hgderabad} and Shqik Jq.ni Begum a. Shaik Sira Junnisa Begum @, Surya Rumari2 submits that second wife is entitled to family pension and other benefits, provided marriage was valid ancl pensioner had submitted relevant details during their lifetime. In this case, deceased's annual verification certificates submitted in 2O 13 and 2O15, constitute sufhcient notihcation to the authorities about his second marriage and family members had also accepted her entitlement to pension and that respondents, refusal to, process her claim contradicts the evidence on record. According to learned counsel, the 19gO Rules do not prohibit a second wife from receiving family pension, particularly in cases where the first wife is deceased.

3. Respondents countered the case of petitioner stating that the latter submitted Application dated 26.05.20\T to the 2"d respondent for release of family pension which was forwarded to the 3.d respondent seeking ciarification and instructions through letter dated 02.06.2017 and letter dated

06.06.2077. It was noted that Late Mohammed Ismaii Ali Khan, Superintendent retired voiuntarily on 3L.OZ.2OO7 and he had '2013 (6) ALD 636 '20r7 (1) ALD 88 : : I l j I ,+ not submittcci an1, declaration or nomination regarding l-ris remarriage to lhe 2'd respondent during his lifetirne Hcr: ce' the Jrcll65pglld6nlissuedletterda|ed1o.o8'2olTinlbrmingLhe2nd respondcnt tllilt as per Rule 49 of the 1980 Rules evcry Government ser-vant must provide a nomination specifying the spouse s n:trne for pensionary benefits The represr:ntation dated Og .Ol.2Ol7 made by the deceased pensioner to r'he 4th responclenr or-rl-v pertained the death benehts ol l-ris fir'st wife' who expired ttrt '22.11.2009 but he had not declzrred his second marriage dunng his lifetime, nor was it entered into the service records. The 2"d respondent, based on these obselrations' issued ietter clate<l 28.08.2017 to petitioner stating that her name had noL been entered tnto the service records and deceaserl htLd t-rot nominated her as a benehciary of the family pcnsion. Thus, :rs per the applicable rules and irLstructions from thc 3rd rcsp,ondent, she was rneligible to claim family rlension' Thougl-r petittoner claimed that her husband mentionecl her as his spor-tsr: and uoted the date of their marriage (09 05 -2013) in respondent, there was no a commun ic:.ltion to the 4tr corresp<;nclrng intimation to Respondents 2 and 3 'vho are concerned fcir for-warding pension related matters T1'r': action w 5 taken against her application was communicated through letter dated 28.08.2077. According to respondents, Rule 49 ot the 19gO Rules mandates a nomination for pension benefits and Rule 50(6)(a)(i) pertains to cases where multiple wiclows may be entitled to a family pension. However, in this case, the deceased employee had neither declared his remarriage nor nominated petitioner, making her claim in consistent with the rules. It is the further case of respondents that the 2"d respondent addressed on 16.O2.2O\g to the Chairman, Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board/Telangana seeking genuinencss of the marriage certificate of petitioner and reminder was also sent on

17.O4.2O18, but the same was not acted upon. Similarly, the confirmation sought by the 2.d respondent regarding family member certificate was also not received.

4. Learned Government pleader for Service s II submits that petitioner's reliance on Rule 25 of the 1964 Rules and Rule 50(6)(a)(i) of the 1980 Rules is misplaced for, the 2.d marriage was not declared or recorded by the deceased pensioner, and the Petitioner is not entitled to a family pension under the existing rules. .t 6 lt is well-settled principle that Muslinr Personal Lau' 5. allows a Mrtslrm man to marry up to four u'ives' provided cerlain conditions arc met. In this case, the first rvife ol the employee pr,:-deceascd him leaving no legal bar to petitioner's marriage rvitlL clcceased. As could be seen from the anrlral vcrihcation rcports clated 05 11'2013 ancl 09 12 2015' was mentioned as spouse s'ith ':late of petitioner's name remarriage ers 09.05.2013. Respondents have not prodl.::ed any evi.dence to the contra. Hence, the said certrficates can be deemecl to tre suflicient to the authorities regarding his second marriagc a :rrl recognition of petitione r as h is rvile ' While respondenLs contend that thcre was no formal nominrltion or declaratjon ir-r the serwice records, submissiorL of verihcation certificales collslitutes substantial compliance 'with Ru te 50 of the Andhra Pr.rdesh Revised Pension Rules (APIRPS), 1!t80 The said RuIe prr;vides that in cases vvhere the::c are multiple widou,s, fanrill pension is to be shared equally among th em The said provision is r-rot applicable in the case on lLand as the first rvife pre de:cirsecl pensioner. Hence, the contcrtion of learned counsel lbr peLitioner that his client, as ther sole s;urviving sponse, anrl u'ho also obtained no objection consent fr'lm legal *--4 i I I I I 7 heirs of dcceased, is entitled to the full family pension, holds merit, as the Rule does not explicitly prohibit a second wife from receiving famiiy pension if the marriage was valid under personal lau, and the pensioner had notihed the authorities.

6. Respondents' reliance on Rule 25 of the A.p. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which requires prior permission for a second marriage, is misplaced. The second marriage took placc after the death of the first wife and did not violate the Conduct Rules. Additionaily, deceased pensioner retrred at the time of thc second marriage, rendering applicability of this Rule debatable. The validily of the marriage under Muslim Personal Law supersedes the requirement for departmental permission in this context. The judgments relied on by petitioner in the cases \ menlioned supra aflirm the entitlement of a second wife to family pension if the marriage was valid under personal law. Petitioner admittedly, submitted all requisite documents, including death certificate, marriage certificate and notarized alhdavits from family members who raised ho objection. Respondents, despite receiving these documents, failed to process her claim and issued rejection orders based on technicalities rather than substantive compliance with the 8 o Rules. Therelorc, this Court holds that rejection of petir ioner's claim for fa mill' pension is arbitrary and cc ntrary lo the provisions of ti-re APRPS Rules, 198O.

7. l-hc Writ Petition is therefore, allowed settrng aside the orders d;rted 10.08.2O 17 and 28'Oa'2O17 ' Responde:ts are directecl to process and release the family pens'ion of Mohammccl Isrnai] Ali Khan in favour of petttioner alorrg with arrears frorrL thc date of his death, i'e 29 O1''2017, u'ithin a period of lour rveeks from the date of receipt o1 a copy of this order. No costs.

8. Consequcntly, Miscellaneous Applii:alions, rf any shal1 stanrl <:losed. SD/.K. SREE RAMA MURTHY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// J SECTION OFFICER To 1 2 J 4 5 r, 7 o Prl..Secretary, I and CAD Department, Secretariat Buildings, lsaifabad, Hyderabad, T.S, State of Telangana. The Administration cum Chief Engln-eer, Sri Ramsagar project, LMD Colony, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District, T.S. The Engineer in Chief(AW), I and CAD Department, Erramanzil, Hyderabad,l'.S The Assistarrt Pension Officer, PPO, Chand rayanagutta, Hyderabad,T.S. The Accountant General, Telangana, Hyderatiad, iS One CC to SRI CH.RAVINDER. AovocJte toPUCI Two CCs to ,GP FOR SERVICES-|t, High iourt foi the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies PSK. BS 6 HIGH COURT DATED:0610312025 ORDER WP.No.33127 of 2017 \1 1 :rt. ST4 ,c. o t53 22 rAB 2825, t 2:'. " ,1c q(a (n (

7. o .4' ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 0r' I ,)