IMPORTANT POINT
Proof of marital status is essential for claiming family pension under the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, especially in cases involving multiple widows.

ORDER :

(Subba Reddy Satti, J.) :

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“… to issue a writ order or direction more particularly a writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the Respondents 1 to 6 in not releasing the Family Pension in favour of the petitioner pertaining to her husband Sri Kondreddy Baya Reddy, PPO, I.D.No.10030821, is contrary to the Rule 50 (6)(a)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 as illegal and arbitrary and unconstitutional and as it is violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the Respondents 1 to 6 to release the Family Pension to the Petitioner as per law, forthwith, and pass necessary order/s…”

2. The averments in the writ affidavit, in brief, are that the petitioner is the first wife of late Sri Kondreddy Baya Reddy, employed as Revenue Officer, under the control of respondent No.2. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with three daughters namely Anuradha, Madhavi and Shoba and their marriages were performed during the lifetime of Sri Baya Reddy. Said Baya Reddy retired from the service on 31.03.2005 on attaining the age of superannuation and died on 20.05.2021 leaving behind the petitioner as his legal heir. The petitioner approached respondent No.2 on numerous occasions for a grant of the family pension.

3. While so, respondent No.7 claiming to be the second wife of late Baya Reddy, whose name was mentioned as a nominee in the service register, has been drawing the family pension. The petitioner got issued a legal notice, on 29.06.2021, to the respondent Nos.1 to 6 to release the family pension in her favour. On 27.07.2021, petitioner and respondent No.7 agreed to receive family pension equally and the same was reduced into writing. Respondent No.7 paid half share of the family pension for four months and later she stopped paying half of the pension amount. Late Baya Reddy, during his lifetime, executed an unregistered Will dated 06.07.2005 and made arrangements for family pension. As per Rule 50(6)(a)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short ‘the Rules’), ‘where family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to widows in equal shares. Petitioner is the first wife of said Baya Reddy and there is no marriage between the deceased employee and respondent No.7. With these averments, the above writ petition is filed.

4. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.2. It was contended, inter alia, that late Baya Reddy, worked as Revenue Officer in Ananthapuram Corporation. At his request, he was transferred to Kadiri Municipality. While he was working as Revenue Inspector at Kadiri Municipality, he retired from the service, on 31.03.2005 on attaining the age of superannuation. After retirement, he made representation to the Kadiri Municipality for pension and pensioner benefits. The Commissioner of Kadiri Municipality forwarded the representation for the preparation of pension proposals. Accordingly, the management addressed the deceptive rolls of Baya Reddy with a joint photo of the service pensioner in an annexure, for preparation of pension proposals to the Audit authorities, through the Commissioner, Kadiri Municipality. Accordingly, the deceptive rolls with his photo and joint photo with the family pension beneficiary were submitted, showing the name of respondent No.7 as his wife, and her name was included as a nominee, in his nomination papers. Accordingly, pension proposals were forwarded to Commissioner, Kadiri Municipality, for sanction of pension. The audit authorities sanctioned the pension making respondent No.7 as nominee of the pensioner as per the deceptive rolls and joint photo submitted by the pensioner. As per the death certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, Kothavuru, Baya Reddy died on 20.05.2021. In the death certificate, respondent No.7’s name is shown as his wife. The petitioner neither produced proper documen