IMPORTANT POINT
The nominee's entitlement to family pension is upheld, but disputes regarding marital status must be resolved in civil court.

ORDER :

(K. Manmadha Rao, J.) :

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

“….to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the inaction of the Respondents not granting Family Pension to the Petitioner after demise of her husband Sri Y Narasimhulu Foreman Driver in APSPDCL though the Petitioner was shown as nominee in the service register, is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Rule 50 of A P Revised Pension Rules 1980 contrary to G.O.Ms.No.353 Finance PSC Department, dated 04.12.2010 and contrary to the Art 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent to grant Family Pension to the Petitioner forth with and pass…”

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that her husband by name Srl. Y. Narasimhulu was expired on 21-06-2019 leaving the Petitioner as widow. During his life time he worked as a Foreman, Driver In earnest while APSEB. Later, her husband was retired from the service on attaining the age of Superannuation on 30-06-2007. It is stated that the husband of the Petitioner shown the Petitioner as a nominee and also submitted declaration form as per nomination Rules. It is stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued an Order vide G.O.Ms.No. 353 Finance (PSC) Department, dated 04-02-2012, framed procedure for claiming Family Pension after demise of spouse. The Respondent No. 2 Company adopted the Government Order vide Orders EOO (HRD) Ms.No.112, dated 30-04-2011. As per the Government Orders as well as Rule 50 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, the nominee of the employee made in declaration form is entitled family pension, inspite of the same, the respondent has not issued any family pension to the petitioner till date. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. The Counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent. While denying all the allegations made in the petition, inter alia contended that, the husband of the petitioner i.e., Y.Narasimhulu was joined in Electricity Department as Driver on 05-07-1968 and he retired on 30-05-2019 on attaining the age of superannuation and expired on 21-06-2019. As per the Service Register, the deceased Y.Narasimhulu nominated the Writ petitioner's name as a wife. It is further stated that, after the death of Y.Narasimhulu, one N. Chandravathi and Writ Petitioner requested APSPDCL authorities to sanction pension as the wife of the deceased. On considering their request, APSPDCL directed them to approach the competent court to declare their legal status. Further, it is submitted that as per the direction of APSPDCL, N.Chandravathi filed a Writ petition in WP.No.1575/2020 in the High Court of A.P. to declare the inaction of the APSPDCL not granting family pension to her in spite of the representation is illegal and on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble High Court was disposed of the said Writ petition and directed APSPDCL authorities to consider the representation and pass necessary orders in accordance with the law or 28-01-2020. In due obedience to the orders of the Hon'ble High court, authorities of APSPDCL addressed a letter No.701/2020 Dt: 12-03-2020 to said N.Chandravathi to produce documents i.e. Aadhar card, Pan card, 3 Nos. passport size photos, family member certificate, etc., for taking necessary action. The same was received by her, but part of the documents was submitted. Hence, again, the authorities addressed a letter Dt:8-12-2020 to the said Chandravathi requested to produce the documents. But, so far she did not furnish the same. It is further stated that in Writ Petition No.1575/2020 N.Chandravathi does not add Sakunthalamma (who is the present Writ Petitioner) as a party. At the time, in the present Writ Petition, Y.Sakunthalamma also does not add Chandravathi as a party. In view of the above, N.Chandravathi is a proper for adjudication of the dispute between both parties. Hence, non-impleading neces