Smt. Marapaka Triposa v. State Of Telangana, Represented

4. Mr. Akarapu Papaiah, $/o not known aged - not known R/o Thadikonda Village, Ghanpur Mpndal Janagon 506 301, Nalgonda District, Telangana State. ...RESPONOENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to a) direct the Respondents No. 2 and 3 herein to settle the share gf the Petitioner in the terminal benefits and monthly family pension expeditiously and pay the due amount to the Petitioner immediately and also direct the 2nd and 3rd Respondents to pay family pension to the Petitioner as per her eligibili{y every month and also restrain the 4th Respondent from his unlawful claim of the terminal benefits of petitioners late husband Dr. Marapaka David. --.&BTr' b) by issuance of \ /rit of [tlandamus lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in ther circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High.Cc,urt may be pleased to direct the Responrlents No. 2 and 3 to release the arrears of the Petitioners share of Family Pension forthwith for her maintenance and towards her medical expenses lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petrtion under Section 151 CPC praying that in the: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Ccurt may be pleased to permit the petitioner to permit the petitioner to file the Legal heir certificate for the purpose of better arljudication of the matter and to achieve fair trial. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J.SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES'I Counsel for the Respondent No.4: Ms. B.ANKITHA The Court made the following: ORDER n 1 wp_43973-2018 NBK, J THEHON' BLE SRI JUSTICENAGESH BHEE WRITPETITION No.43973 of 201E ORDER: The case of the petitioner, precisely, as per the writ affrdavit' is that she is the second wife of (late) Dr' Marapaka David' who was a Deputy Civil Surgeon in the Urban Primary Health Centre' Hasanparthy' Warangal, and retired in the year 2013' Mr' David's first wife (Mrs' B' Vijaya Kumari) predeceased him on 02'09'2000' The petitioner married David on 16.08.2002, and as on the date of her marriage' he had two children (sons) from his hrst wife and their monetary settlements whatsoever have been settled prior to her marrying David, and the two sons have been under the care of their matemal grandparents' Mr' David passed away on 24.01.2018, and thereafter she made Applications before the 2nd respondent-District Medicat & Health Officer on 21.05.2018, 02.07.2018, and l3'08'2018 requesting to grant family pension and terminal benefits; however, the same are being delayed due to illegal claims raised by one Mr' Papaiah' who is the brother of her husband. She had also filed O'S'No' 1945 of 2019 on the file of X Junior civil Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad, by arraying her two stepsons and Mr. Papaiah as defendants l'2 ar.;td 3' and the trial Court decreed the Suit by Order dated 15'03'2022 declar\tg the plaintiff fuetitioner herein), and the defendants I and 2 (the sons Mr' David) as the legal heirs. It is her grievance that though she made aforesaid representations by enclosing relevant documents' however they have not I ., wp_43973_2018 NBK, J been processed allegedly on the illegal interference of one Mr. papaiah who is the brotl.,er of the deceased.

2. Heard Mr. .1. Sudheer, leamed counsel for lhe petitioner; and learned Govemnrent Pleader for Services-I appearinp lor the respondent Nos.l to 3. Perused lhe record

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions on the lines of u,rit alfidavit, essentially contends that the monetary claims in respect of the two sons of her husband (from his first wife) have been settled prior to her nranying him. It is contended that after the death of her husband, shr: rrade several representations to the authorities to grant family pension. horvever, the same has not been granted yet. It is contended that the petitioner is 52 years old, with no source of income, suffering from r:aldiac problem and the delay bein51 done in granting family pension by the respondent authorities is ilkgal and arbitrary. Learned counse relie s on sub-rule 7 of Rule 54 of the CCS pension Rules, 1972. goierning the sharing of family pension in the case of a deceased govern rnent employee.

4. Learned ( iovernlnent Pleader, basing on the counter affrdavit, contends that the Service Records of the deceased does not mention about his mari:rge with the petitioner; and her name is not in the Declaration of Family Members, nor she is a nomirree in his Service Records. It is cc,ntended that the claim of the petitirtner could not be processed for want of legal heir certificate from the competent authority. 5. Having corrsidered the respective submissions and perused the record, the grievance lies in a narrow compass. The ernployment of Mr. 3 wP -43973 -2OtA NSK, J David with the respondent Department and his retirement is not in dispute. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner filed a Suit i'e'' O.S.No.1945 of 2019 before the trial Court, by arraying the children of her husband (with his first wife, who predeceased him)' seeking declaration as legal heirs, and the trial Court decreed the Suit by Judgment dated 15.03.2022,by observing as follows: "17. As the evidence of PWI coupled with Ex'Al to A8 remained unrebuttedandalsoasthereisnocontraryevidenceonthispoint, this court is of the considered opinion that it is just fair' reasonable to declare the plaintiff and Defendant No'1 and 2 as the legal heirc of Late MaraPaka David' lN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed, however' without costs' declaring that the plaintiff, Defendant No'1 and D2 are the legal heirs of Late Marapaka David for the purpose of legal status only.,,

6. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to sub-rule 7 under Rule 54 of CCS Pension Rules, 1972, which state as follows: (7) (a) (i): Where the family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to the widows in equal shares. (ii): On the death of a widow, her share of the family pension shall become payable to her eligible child: Provided that if the widow is not survived by any child' her share of the famity pension shalt not lapse but shall be payable to the other widows in equal shares, or if there is only one such other widow in full, to her' (b) Where the deceased Government seryant or pensioner is survived by a widow but has left behind eligible child or children ): 4 wp_43973_2018 NBK, J from another wife who is not alive, the eligible child or children shall be entitled to the share of family pension which the mother would have received if she had been alive at the time of the death of the Government servant or pensioner, Provided that on the share or shares of family pension payable to such a child or chitdren or to a widow or widows ceasing to be payable, such share or shares shall not lapse, but shall be payable to the other widow or widows and/or to other child or children otherwise eligible, in equal shares, or if there is only one widow <>r child, in full, to such widow or child. (c) Where the deceased Government servant or pensioner is survived by a widow but has left behind eligible child or children from a divorced wife or wives the eligible child or children shall be entitled to the share of family pension which the mother would have received at the time of the death of the Government servant or pensioner had she not been so divorced. Provided that on the share or shares of family pension payable to such a child or children or to a widow or widows ceasing to be payable, such share or shares, shall not lapse. but shall be payable to the other widow or widows and/or to the other child or children othervvise eligible, in equal shares, or if there is only one widow or child. in full, to suclt widow or chitd. (d) where the family pension is payable to twin children it shall be paid to such children in equal shares:

7. The proviso to Rule 7(b) speaks about the entillement of a surviving widou to the lamily pension of the deceased. This Court, under Afticle 226, is not inclined to go into the -l 5 wp_43973_2018 NBK, J computational aspect of the exact quantum of family pension; however, suffice it to say that the deceased, if survived by more than one widow, the family pension would be payable to them in equal share; and if one of the widow becomes ineligible, her share would not lapse but would devolve on her children-based on their eligibility, and if there are no eligible children, still her share would not lapse but would devolve on other widows in equal shares and if there is only one widow, to her in full.

8. Be that as it may, in the instant case, the deceased had a wife prior to marrying the petitioner; and he has children through the first wife. Though the first wife is not alive, her share of family pension would be payable to her children based on the eligibility criteria under CCS Pension Rules, 1972. The cause title in the judgment dated 15.03.2022 of the trial Court shows that the two sons are students, aged about 19 years, at the relevant time; however, their entitlement to family pension depends on their exact documented age at the relevant time when the payment of family pension became due, and also on the aspect of their physicaVmental and medical conditions as described under the CCS Pension Rules, 1972. This aspect is a matter of verification by the pension payment authority before sanctioning/payment of family pension as per the Rules. In case the children are found to be not eligible as per the criteria under the Rules, even as on the date when the family pension became due and payable, then such share of family pension shall become payable to the petitioner from such date as per Rules. \ ,| I 6 wp_43973_2018 NBK,I

9. In that vieu, of the matter, the respondent Nrts.2 and 3 to take into consirleration the legal heir status of the petitioner and the two sons (uho were the defendant Nos.1 and 2 before the trial Court). Thereafter, considering the documented age and other criteria as applicable under CCS pension Rules, 19,72, as on the date when the f:rmilv pension became due and payabte on account of the death of the deceased, assess the entitlement of the petitioner and ihe two sons, and compute the farnily pension payable to the petitioner and the two sons, and release the family pension to therr accordingly. In case the two sons are found not eligible as per the age/other criteria applicable for payment of family pension rrnder CCS Pension Rules, 1972, then their share of the family pension shall become payable to the petitioner, from the date the tu,o sons became ineligible, as per law. I 0. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed ol. No costs. Miscellaneous pt:titions pending, if any, shall stand clcsed. //TRUECOPY// SD/.P, PADMANABHA REDDY ,.\ PEPUTY REGISTRAR t ^\'-._\ oFFlcER "t"''o" The- Specrar ohief secretary.to Government H}Artr Medicar and Family Welfare (VC . , Department- Tetangan, $;ei;;;il n,aeranaA, StatE" O? Telangana. The District Medicar and Hearth_officer, office of the District lvredicar and Heatth officer \varangar Urban, JpN noait warang?,'rerangihi- d06bdi.""' The Deputy Civil Surqeon._Urban prime Health Centre. Hasanparthy UpHC, Warangal Urbar 506 602 Telangana State. -' --' One CC to SRI J SUDHEER, Advocate tOpUCl One CC to Ms B ANK|THA, Advocate tOpUCI Two ccs to GF' FoR SERVTOES-|, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderqbad [OUT] fwo CD Copies \ To, 1 2 3 4 5 t) 7 BSR BS g HIGH COURT DATED:0810412025 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.43973 of 2018 HE SI4 /4: .F [i 3 fiAy zoz5 () l- .I I .* + 't..ii....,-t1,tl,!- DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 09q'iu ?v