HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA

WRI T PETI TI ON No.9281 OF 2023

ORDER:

Heard Sri Hari Kishan Kudikala, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri A.Chandra Shekhar, learned Standing Counsel for TGNPDCL

appearing on behalf of respondents.

2. The petitioner approached this Court seeking the

prayer as under:

“… to issue an order or direction or a writ,

more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo No’s. SE/OP/KNR/SAO/A0(E)/AAO/JA0(PEN)/SA/D.No.10 75/16, Dt.22-03-2017 and SE/OP/KNR/ DE(T)/PO/JAO/S1/J1/D.No.1079/21, Dt.26-08- 2021 issued by the 2^nd Respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner for sanction of family pension relating to her deceased father A.Narayana Reddy (Retired UDC) as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the provisions of The Telangana Revised Pension Rules, 1980, consequently direct the respondents to sanction family pension in favor of the petitioner and to

pass....”

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is a widowed daughter of A.Narayana Reddy, who served as Upper Division Clerk in the respondent organization and retired on

31.07.1993. After petitioner’s father's demise on 05.03.2002, petitioner’s mother received family pension until her death on 07.09.2015. The petitioner applied for family pension under Category II of Rule 50 of the Telangana Revised Pension Rules, 1980, However, the respondents rejected the application of the petitioner twice, citing incorrect interpretation of the Rule 50 of the Telangana Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

PERUSED THE RECORD:

4. The relevant portion of the impugned proceedings of the respondent No.2 vide Memo No.SE/ Op/ KNR/ SAO/ AO(E)/ AAO/ JAO(PEN)/ SA/ D.No.1075/ 16 dated 22.03.2017 addressed to the respondent No.3 herein is extracted hereunder:

“The Divisional Engineer. Operation. Karimnagr has submitted application of Smi. A. Padma widowed daughter of Late Sri. A. Narayana Reddy, Ex-UDC service pensioner connection with PPO, No. 66/93 for sanctioning family pension as alternate nominee vide reference 1^st cited above.

On verification of her application and its enclosers, it is observed that the service pensioner Sri. Late A. Narayana Reddy. Ex-UDC retired on 31.07.1993 AN and expired on 05.03.2002. Subsequently his wife Smt. A. Madhuramma also availed family pension w.e.f.

06.03.2002 and she was also expired on 07.09.2015.

It is to reiterate that the provisions contained under rule 50 of AP Revised Rules 1980 as amended from time to time and as per the para 3(iii) of G.O.Ms.No.315, Finance (P.S.C.) Department, Dt: 07.10.2010 read with N.O.O. (CGM-HRD) Ms.No.430, Dt: 13.12.2010 read as bellow.

Payment of family pension to the widowed/divorced daughter, irrespective whether she became widowed' divorced daughter either before or after the retirement of employee, provided the spouse predecease the pensioner and sons/daughters become ineligible for the family pension; and While so, in this instance case. family pension after expiry of the deceased, the family pension was sanctioned to his spouse Smt. A. Madhuramma on 06.03.2002 and later she died on 07.09.2015.

Application along with its all enclosures received vide reference above cited is herewith returned. Therefore, the Divisional Engineer. Operation.

Karimnagar is hereby instructed to reject and return the application its enclosures of the applicant duly informing as above."

5. The relevant portion of the impugned proceedings of the respondent No.2 vide Memo No.SE/ OP/ KNR/ DE(T)/ PO/ JAO/ S1/ J1/ D.No.1079/ 21 dated 26.08.2021 addressed to the respondent No.3 herein is extracted hereunder:

“The attention of the Divisional Engineer, Operation, Karimnagar is drawn to the reference 2nd cited, wherein the application received for sanction of family pension to Smt.A.Padma, widowed daughter of Late Sri.A.Narayana Reddy, Ex-UDC (Retired) P.PO.No.66/A was rejected and it is reiterated tha