Iuniamoallv Rameshwaramma v. 1- State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ. order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of lvlandamus by declaring the entire action of the 1st and 2nd respondents in not including the name of the petitioner, who is legally wedded wife to the 3rd respondent in the concerned service register and also in pension papers submitted by the 3rd respondent as nominee for the purpose of getting future benefits, in the place of her husband, by duly deleting name of one Smt- B' Bharthi Devi, who is an outsider as per revised pension rules inspite of requests from the petitioner (i-e, legally wedded wife of the 3rd respondent) as highly illegal. arbitrary, unjust, improper, bad in law, col'orable exercise of power' contrary to the provisions of A.P., Revised pension rules and consequently to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to forthwith include the name of the petitioner in the service register and pension papers submitted by the 3rd respondent as nominee of the 3rd respondent, as she is legally wedded wlfe to enable her to get future benefits in the place of 3rd respondent. l.A.NO:1 OF 2017 (WPMP.NO:3026 0 0F 2017) 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 1& 2 to forthwith include the name of the petitioner in the service register and pension papers submitted by the 3rd respondent as nominee of the 3rd respondent, as she is legally wedded wife to enable her to get future benefits in the place of 3rd respondent pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SMT B.VIJAYA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : GP FOR SERVICES- | Counsel for the ResPondent No.3 : - Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI B.NARSIMHA SHARMA The Cburt made the following ORDER I I ! I i I I i l i i l I ! \ I a l 1 I HON'BLE SRI WSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITI ON No.2 4432 of2OL7 ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the inaction of Respondent Nos.l and 2 in failing to include the petitioner' the legally wedded wife of Respondent No'3, as the nominee in the service records and pension papers, ald in not deleting the name of Srnt. B. Bharathi Devi, an unrelated person, in violation of the Revised Pension Rules'

2. Petitioner is lega-lly wedded u'ife of respondent No'3 and has two daughters. Due to family disputes and cruelty' respondent No.3 deserted petitioner, who now lives separately with her children Taking advantage of the separation, Respondent No'3 developed an illegal relationship n'ith Smt- Bharathi Devi' Aggrieved by his conduct, petitioner filed o S No 1051 of 1976 against respondent No.3 and he agreed to pay maintenance of Rs.150/ per month to petitioner and Rs'75/- per month to each child. He also agreed that in case of default, petitioner 2 NBK, J W.P.No-24432 of 2017 and her children would be entitled to ha,lf of his salary, pF, gratuity, etc. Later, petitioner liled M.C.No .112 of t979 before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, seeking enhancement of maintenance and the 17.05.199 l, increased Nalgonda, trial Court uide order dated maintenance to Rs.25O/_ per month for each of the petitioners. It is further stated that Respondent No.3, without petitioner,s lceowledge, illegally married Smt. Bharathi Devi and petitioner filed a criminal case rega_rding the sarne. Respondent No.3 joined the Marketing Department on O9.OZ.I9Z0 and retired as Deputy Director (Marketing) on 30.O6.2O06. He submitted his pension papers to the Additional Director, Industries Department, Government of A.p. Upon learning of his retirement, petitioner obtained pension papers through the RTI Act, 20O5. She was shocked to find that in Column No.l6 (family pension beneficiary), Respondent No.li had named Smt. M.Bharathi Devi instead of petitioner. Desprte issuing lega-l notices and submitting represcntations to Respondent Nos. 1 ald 2 to correct the pension records and name the I I ; t iI I l ! a i I I 'l 3 NBK, J lll.P.No.24432 of 201? petitioner as the lawful wife, no action has been taken Hence, this Writ Petition.

3. Heard learned Government pleader for Services_I for respondents. No representation on behalf of the petitioner. Perused the record.

4. Learned Government pleader for Services_I for the respondents, fiIed a counter affidavit stating that petitioner is first wife of respondent No.3, who subsequently married a second wife named Bharathi Devi. Respondent No.3 included the name of second u,ife in his service pension records. It is stated that, upon death of respondent No.3, the family pension witl be granted based on the nomination made by him in the pension documents. [t is further stated that if petitioner disputes this, she has the remedy of approaching the Civil Court and obtaining an appropriate decree. As such, the relief sought in this Writ petition is not sustainable,.and the petitioner must avail herself of the appropriate legal forum. Therefore, the writ perition is n9!.- maintainable and is liable ro be dismissed. i I 4 NBK. J ll'-P.No-24432 of 2017

5. Upon considering the facts ald circumstances of the case and the material placed on record, it is evident that petitioner is legally wedded frrst wife of respondent No.3 and has two children with him. It may be noted that petitioner has also secured maintenance orders through civil and cnminEl proceedings, which remain undisputed. lt is also not in dispute that respondent No.3 during the subsistence of his first marriage, entered into a second marriage with Smt. Bharathi Devi and nominated her as family pension beneficiar5r. It may be further noted that the issue of entiflement to family pension invoives disputed questions of fact, including marital status and the legality of the second marriage, which cannot be adj udicated in n,rit jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ol India. Accordingly, this Court is of the vieu that the rvrit petition is not maintainable and the petitioner is at libertl' to approach the appropriate Civil Court lor rerdressal of her grievance.

6. [n view of the above findings, the r'r'rit petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the 5 NBK, J W.P.No.244J2 of 2017 competent Civil Court for appropriate relief in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. / SDI S. ALLIKARJUNA RAO TANT REGIS CTION OFFICER /ffRUE COPY'/ To Buildings, State at, of Telangana at Hyderabad. :TheAccountantGeneral,,stateofTelangana,saifabad.Hvderabad. er of lndust ries, State of Telangana, Chirag-Ali Lane' Abids'

1. The Principa I Secretary, lndustries Department' Secre 2. The Commission Hvderabad. 4. Two ccs to GP FoR senViSEdlr"i6i"C;;'1 f; the state of relansana at . iji';"bCi,;'sili ti'vtlnve LAKSHN"II Advocate toq-ucl 3. SliE 6E i" Siii'e-.NARsrn'inn snnnN/A' Advocate (oPUC) 7. Two CD CoPies Hvderabad. [OUTI SA TK a i I .. i t I i ! t a j i t_ ; .; * * c E E f f 6 ! HIGH COURT 'DATED:2610612025 ) .' :] !'i) s L' --. u 5 siP lotr ';). + \\..4.. \.:.i--" '-i. ORDER WP.No.24432 of 2017 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS- r