ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“….to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of family pension to the petitioner vide Proceedings dated .04.01.2022 and in not releasing the family pension to the petitioner as the same is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the impugned proceedings dated 04.01.2021 and direct the respondents to release the family pension w.e.f.13.12.2019 from the date of death of the husband of the petitioner …..”

2. Heard Sri G.Ravi Mohan, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for Services-III.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner viz., G.Muralidhar retired from service as Excise Inspector on 31.03.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation and consequently on his retirement the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.1914 Revenue (Vigilance) Department dated 14.10.2008, sanctioning provisional pension pending finalization of disciplinary proceedings against him. The husband of the petitioner was receiving provisional pension till his death on 13.12.2019. The petitioner was married to G.Muralidhar (deceased Employee) in the year 1974 and they blessed with three children viz., Shailaja, G.Arvind Kumar and Swetha and all of them were married.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the year 2005 one Anantha Laxmi filed a criminal case under Sections 498-A and 494 of IPC against the petitioner and her husband in CC No.132 of 2006 on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and the same was dismissed with a finding that there was no proof of marriage between Anantha Laxmi and G.Murlidhar Rao. Thereafter the said Anantha Laxmi filed a Maintenance Case in MC No.109/2008 and the said petition was allowed on 30.06.2010 and maintenance was paid by husband of the petitioner till the date of death of Anantha Laxmi i.e. in the year, 2014.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that after death of the husband of the petitioner, the respondents have not sanctioned the family pension and the petitioner filed W.P.No.18384 of 2020 and this Court passed order on 19.10.2020 to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within period of two months and in view of the orders passed by this court, the petitioner made representation on 11.11.2020 and accordingly the respondents have passed the orders on 04.01.2021 stating that in the light of the judgment passed by the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad as the petitioner has no legal status and she is not eligible for family pension of Late G.Muralidhar Rao.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No.2 failed to see that the findings in CC No.132/2006 were not conclusive result as the same was not a decree or order of the court to rely upon it as it is a criminal court judgment in respect of 498-A and 494 of IPC. The husband of the petitioner on his retirement submitted his pension proposals duly showing the name of the petitioner as his wife and she is eligible for family pension as per Rule-50 of Telangana Revised Pension Rules, 1980. The name of the petitioner was mentioned in service record and therefore the petitioner is entitled for family pension and requested to allow the writ petition.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention relied on the following judgment of High Court of Madras.

1. C.Sarojini Devi Vs. Director of Local Fund Audits and others, 2000 SCC ONLINE Mad 28025.

8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III basing on the Counter submits that though the name of the petitioner was shown as wife of the deceased-employee, family pension benefits were not sanctioned in view of judgment dated 27.10.2009 passed