JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri Pappu Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5, Sri G. Srinivasulu Reddy, learned standing counsel for the 4th respondent and Sri G. Simhadri, learned counsel for 6th respondent and newly impleaded 7th respondent, and perused the material on record.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following reliefs:-

“...to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order or direction declaring the impugned action of the Respondents 2 to 5 in withholding the death benefits and family pension payable to the petitioner on account of the death of her husband Geddam Subbaraju on Dt. 16.6.2016 as illegal arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice etc and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 to pay the death-cum-retirement benefits payable on account of the death of Geddam Subbaraju to the petitioner and also consider her application for compassionate appointment at an earliest point of time and pass such other order or orders….”

3. The petitioner – Paka Padmavathi (Geddam) is the second legally wedded wife of deceased Geddam Subba Raju. Their marriage was solemnized on 03.06.2013 as per the traditions of Christian Community. The petitioner was blessed with two children out of said wedlock.

4. Geddam Subba Raju initially filed O.P.No.63 of 1994 under Section 13 (1)(i) r/w.Sec.12 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce and dissolution of marriage with 6th respondent, the first legally wedded wife. The same was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram vide judgment dated 11.03.1998 against which he filed CMA No.3524 of 1999, which was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 05.06.2009.

5. During the pendency of CMA.No.3524 of 1999, late Geddam Subba Raju filed another O.P.No.96 of 2007 seeking divorce from 6th respondent, the first wife, which was decreed ex parteagainst the 6th respondent on 24.03.2008.

6. After dissolution of marriage with 6th respondent, late Geddam Subba Raju married the writ petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that late Geddam Subba Raju during his lifetime duly reported the 4th respondent-the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, East Godavari District, Kakinad about the divorce decree; about his marriage with the petitioner vide documents annexed to the reply affidavit, viz., divorce decree, marriage certificate respectively, as also the birth certificates of the children from the petitioner, which were duly recorded and endorsed in the Service Register of Geddam Subba Raju. His submission is that in view of the above, the petitioner is entitled for release of the death benefits and the family pension as also for appointment on compassionate grounds, but her case has not been considered and the death benefits are also not released by the official respondents.

8. Sri Pappu Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, next submits that the respondent No.7 is not the son of the deceased Geddam Subba Raju and has no right in the death benefits and the family pension being claimed by the petitioner.

9. Sri G. Simhadri, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7 submits that the first OP.No.63 of 1994 filed by the deceased Geddam Subba Raju was dismissed and the CMA No.3524 of 1999 filed there against was also dismissed. The O.P.No.96/2007 was filed during pendency of CMA No.3524 of 1999, without disclosing the same. Further, the OP No.96 of 2007 was decided exparte against the 6th respondent and consequently, it cannot be said that the divorce took place between late Geddam Subba Raju and the 6th respondent. Their marriage subsisted and as such the marriage of late Geddam Subba Raju with the petitioner is during continuance of his first marriage with the 6th respondent, and is not valid. Consequently, the petitioner is not the legally wedded wife of late Geddam Subba Raju and is not entitled for the rel