Dependency criteria under pension rules must be met for eligibility of family pension; failure to demonstrate dependency results in denial.

ORDER :

T.Madhavi Devi, J.

This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of the directions of this Court in W.P.No.26379 of 2021, dated 26.03.2024, by the respondents and is seeking punishment for the said disobedience under the Contempt of Courts Act and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.

2. The petitioner had challenged the proceedings dated 31.01.2020 rejecting her claim of compassionate appointment and this Court had directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of family pension provided she fulfills other eligibility criteria. Against the order of this Court, the respondents filed Writ Appeal No.925 of 2024 and the Division Bench of this Court, after considering the rejection order dated 31.01.2020, observed that the appellants therein have not examined the case of the respondent No.1 therein as to whether she was totally dependent on the deceased pensioner, consequent upon the death of her husband and that the rejection order is a cryptic order and no reasons were assigned as to why the family pension is being denied to the respondent No.1 and the Division Bench therefore was not inclined to interfere with the order passed by this Court and the Writ Appeal was accordingly dismissed.

3. However, the respondents failed to comply with the directions of this Court and reconsider the case of the petitioner and therefore, this Contempt Case has been filed.

4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2, stating that consequent to the directions of this Court, he has examined as to whether the petitioner was totally dependent or not on her mother and has passed speaking orders dated 24.01.2025 and therefore, complied with the directions of this Court. It is stated that the petitioner was not dependent on the pensioner, Sri Goverdhanam Venkataramana Charyulu, the father of the petitioner at the time of his death i.e., on 12.05.2012 and after the death of the pensioner, the family pension was granted to the wife of the deceased employee/pensioner and that at the time of grant of family pension to the mother of the petitioner also, the petitioner was not dependent. It is stated that the widowed daughter or unmarried daughter would become eligible for family pension only when the spouse i.e., the wife of the pensioner, is not alive at the time of his death. Therefore, the respondents have relied upon Rule 50 of the Pension Rules, which was duly amended vide G.O.Ms.No.315, dated 07.10.2010, in support of their contentions that “the widowed/divorced daughter would be eligible for the family pension, provided the spouse predeceases the pensioner and sons/daughters referred to in category-I become ineligible for the family pension.”

5. It is further stated that Rule 54 of the Rules provides that it is open to the Government to dispense with or relax the requirements by recording the reasons in writing and subject to the exceptions and conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. It is stated that the petitioner’s father was Junior Accounts Officer of TSNPDCL when he retired from service on 31.03.2004 on attaining the age of superannuation and thereafter, he was sanctioned with service pension and after his death on 12.05.2012, his wife Smt.Goverdhanam Lakshmi Thayaru became the family pensioner and on 30.07.2016, she also passed away. It is submitted that the petitioner’s husband passed away in a road accident on 17.07.2015 and she became dependent on the family pensioner only thereafter. The respondents thus supported the rejection order and submitted that there is no