Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HYDERABAD
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ., G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J.
State of Telangana - Appellant
Vs.
G.Vijaya Lakshmi - Respondent
Writ Appeal No.603 of 2025
Decided On : 02-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the family pension claim case. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding the validity of marriages and entitlement. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 14) |
| 3. service records as determinative evidence. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 4. court's analysis of legal status regarding the pension claim. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. conclusion affirming the ruling of the single judge. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT:
The present Writ Appeal is filed by the State and its officials, who were arrayed as the respondents in W.P.No.21514 of 2022 (hereafter “appellants” for brevity), assailing the order of learned Single Judge dated 07.06.2023 in W.P.No.21514 of 2022 (which was confirmed by the order dated 05.03.2025 in a review application vide I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.21514 of 2022). The learned Single Judge in the order dated 07.06.2023 directed the appellants to release the family pension of Late G.Muralidhar Rao (hereafter “employee” for brevity) to the writ petitioner (hereafter “respondent” for brevity).
2. Heard Ms.B.Annapurna, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for the appellants; and Mr.G.Ravi Mohan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, and perused the record.
Chronology of events and factual matrix (in brief) :
It is apposite to extract a brief chronology of dates and events for the proper appreciation of the controversy involved in the present case.
| Sl. No. | Date | Event | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 23.02.1974 | The marriage of G.Muralidhar Rao (Employee) with Smt.G.Anantha Lakshmi. | As per the respondent and based on the judgment of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad in C.C.No.132 of 2006. |
| 2 | 26.12.1974 | Marriage of the employee with the respondent. | As per the service records of the employee. |
| 3 | 2006 | Smt.G.Anantha Lakshmi filed C.C.No.132 of 2006 under Section 498-A and 494 IPC against the employee and respondent. | Smt.G.Anantha Lakshmi alleges bigamy, for the first time. |
| 4 | 20.09.2007 | Respondent was discharged from C.C.No.132 of 2006 under Section 494 IPC. | Expunges allegations of Bigamy against the respondent. |
| 5 | 27.10.2009 | The learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad acquitted the employee under Sections 498-A and 494 IPC. | Bigamy could not be established and the offence under Section 498-A IPC also was not made out. |
| 6 | 30.06.2010 | Employee suffers an order of maintenance to Smt.G.Anantha Lakshmi. | - |
| 7 | 31.01.2014 | Smt.G.Anantha Lakshmi expired. | - |
| 8 | 13.12.2019 | Employee expired. | - |
| 9 | 25.01.2020 | Application of the respondent for family pension of the employee. | - |
| 10 | 04.01.2021 | Rejection of the application for family pension by the appellants. | - |
| 11 | 19.10.2020 | Order in W.P.No.18384 of 2020 filed by respondent directing the appellants to consider the representation of the respondent to grant pension. | - |
| 12 | 11.11.2020 | Fresh representation of the respondent. | - |
| 13 | 04.01.2021 | Rejection of the representation of the respondent for grant of pension. | - |
| 14 | April, 2022 | Respondent filed W.P.No.21514 of 2022 challenging the rejection of claim of family pension and seeking relief of family pension. | - |
| 15. | 07.06.2023 | The learned Single Judge allowed W.P.No.21514 of 2022 directing the appellants to release the family pension to the respondent. | - |
| 16. | 05.03.2025 | The learned Single Judge dismissed the review application vide I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.21514 of 2022 filed by the appellants. | - |
3. The appellants have filed the present appeal aggrieved by the order dated 07.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.21514 of 2022, as confirmed by the order dated 05.03.2025 in review application vide I.A.No.1 of 2024.
4. The core dispute involved in the present proceedings is the claim for family pension by the respondent, the widow of G.Muralidhar Rao, a retired Prohibition & Excise Inspector (employee). The appellants rejected her claim on the ground that the respondent was the second wife of the employee.
5. The appellants contended that one Smt.G.Anantha Lakshmi was the legally wedded wife of the employee as declared by Criminal Court in C.C.No.132 of 2006, which was tried for the offences under Sections 498-A and 494 IPC. The appellants
The court upheld that service records indicating a spouse's legitimacy govern entitlement to benefits, dismissing challenges based on prior relationships without clear evidence.
Pension is a protected right under Article 300-A of the Constitution; denial of family pension to a legally wedded second wife without due process violates principles of natural justice.
A second wife may be entitled to family pension under amended rules despite existing complications if the first marriage is legally dissolved.
A putative second wife, whose marriage to the deceased is void under the Hindu Marriage Act, is not entitled to family pension under the Pension Rules.
In the absence of any special Rules to the contrary, the nominations referred to under Rule 143 of the Assam (Services) Pension Rules, 1969 will be applicable.
Denial of family pension cannot be justified without clear evidence of marriage validation, as admissions and supporting documentation must be duly considered.
Unchallenged civil court declaration of legal wedlock binds employer-participant via estoppel and res judicata for family pension, overriding non-notification under pension rules.
Point of Law : In the absence of any sanction in law, such action by a public authority like APDCL cannot be accepted to be legally valid.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
