ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed, seeking the following relief :

“…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction to direct the respondent No.2 to take necessary action to cancel the Family Pension granted to the Respondent No.4 vide P.P.O.No.23-012826 SP and STO and PPO ID 0103-22381 and consequently grant the Family Pension to the petitioner, who is the legally wedded wife of the said Late Jayanandam and pass such other orders.”

2. Heard Mr. Swati Guda, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader, Services-I; Mr. K. Swarna Seshu and Mr. S. Harinatha Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of Late Yandava Jayanandam, who worked as Mandal Praja Parishad Development Officer, Itchapuram and retired from service in the month of July, 2011. The petitioner and late Jayanandam got married as per Christian Customs and rights on 07.06.1990. Out of legal wedlock, they blessed a daughter by name Sanjana on 04.05.1994. Subsequently the late Jayanandam developed illicit intimacy with 4th respondent and took her to his house and left the conjugal society of the petitioner in the year 2006. The marriage between the petitioner and late Jayanandam subsisted till his death as the marriage was not dissolved at any point of time. The husband of the petitioner was died on 20.06.2016, leaving behind him, the petitioner and her daughter Sanjana as his Class-I legal heirs, who are legally entitled for all the pensionery benefits of the deceased husband. The petitioner’s daughter filed F.C.M.C.No.11 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Family Judge-cum- Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram against her father Late Jayanandam and the Family Court also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 7,500/- per month towards the maintenance of the petitioner’s daughter and also holding that the petitioner and Sanjana are the wife and daughter of the Late Jayanandam. Even in the recovery petitioner claiming arrears of the maintenance, the said Jayanandam paid the amounts to the daughter of the petitioner and at that stage unfortunately he died suddenly. After death of said Jayanandam, the 4th respondent applied for Family Member Certificate before the Tahsildar, who rejected the same and questioning her relationship with deceased. But the respondents sanctioned the family pension to the 4th respondent by keeping the petitioner aside, inspite of receiving the legal notice also, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence the writ petition came to be filed.

4. Per contra, the 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit denying material averments made in the affidavit and mainly contended that as per documents i.e. FMC/ Nomination attached to the pension proposals the 4th respondent was noted as wife and the date of marriage is noted as 22.11.1992. The descriptive rolls were also enclosed with the joint photos of the petitioner and 4th respondent with her specimen signature. The pension was authorized to Y. Jayanandam, pensioner with Family Pension beneficiary in the name of Y. Ratna Kumari/4th respondent vide proceedings dated 18.10.2011 as she was nominated in the pension papers. Further this respondent is only Pension Authorizing Authority and not Pension Sanctioning Authority. Therefore it is the Department that has to take action either to set right the pension papers or to decide to whom the Family Pension shall have to be paid. This respondent will implement the orders from Pension Sanctioning Authority or any Court orders in this regard and release authorization orders for drawing of Pension. Therefore, requested to dismiss the writ petition.

5. The 2nd respondent filed counter-affidavit denying all material averments made in the affidavit and mainly contended that the deceased employee has registered the name of 4th respondent in all office records as his nominee and submitted his pension proposals for sanction of Family Pension in the event of his death.