##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

WRIT PETITION (TR) No.952 OF 2017 Date: 25.03.2026

Between:

M.Laxmi …Petitioner

AND The District Educational Officer, Rangareddy District &

others

…Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Sri M. Ramgopal Rao, learned Counsel for

the petitioner and Smt. B.Annapurna, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 and none appeared for the

respondent No.3. Perused the material on record.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is questioning the action of the respondents in not sanctioning the family pension to the petitioner as per Rule-50 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980

2 SK,J W.P(TR).No.952 of 2017

being widow of the deceased service pensioner as illegal

and arbitrary.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the husband of the petitioner Late Sri Gurvaiah worked as a Teacher and retired from service on 31.01.1997. With the consent of his first wife Smt. M.Venkatamma due to medical reasons, married the petitioner in the year, 1978. Since then the petitioner was considered as second wife of the deceased retired employee. The 1st wife of the petitioner's husband died on 27.02.2012. Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner died on 23.05.2012. In view of the same, the petitioner made application for release of family pension as per Telangana Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (herein referred

as “the Rules, 1980”).

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the name of the petitioner was nominated by her husband at the time of submitting pension proposals and the petitioner is fully eligible to draw family pension. The family pension proposals of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No.3 on the ground that second wife is

3 SK,J W.P(TR).No.952 of 2017

not eligible for family pension as per Rule 50 (vi) of the Rules, 1980 and the marriage is invalid as per Rule 25 of A.P.C.S. Rules. The Rule quoted by the respondent No 3 is not applicable to the instant case. The deceased husband of the petitioner entered in the nominee column brought both the wives names. The competent authority i.e, the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Education Department sent proposals to the Accountant General by looking into the above facts and circumstances vide Lr.No.54/2012, dated 29.08.2012. Therefore, impugned

order passed by the respondents is arbitrary and illegal.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No.3 cannot raise such an objection at belated stage after marriage performed more than 35 years back. In view of the same, the respondents have to consider the case of the petitioner for releasing of family pension in view of death of the service pensioner. The petitioner is the only surviving wife of deceased service pensioner. As per Rule-50 (vi) (i) of the Rules, 1980, both the wives are entitled for family pension in case of death of the service pensioner. In the instant case, the first

4 SK,J W.P(TR).No.952 of 2017

wife is pre-deceased to the employee of the deceased employee. In view of the same, the petitioner is the only surviving wife of the service pensioner. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to receive the family pension as per

the Rules, 1980 and requested to allow the writ petition.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the order passed by this Court in G.Vijaya Laxmi v. State

of Telangana, 2023 (5) ALT 162

7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 basing on the counter submits that the petitioner is a second wife of the deceased employee Late Sri Gangaiah and she claimed for the family pension on the ground that the first wife died on 27.02.2012 and her husband on 23.05.2012. she submits that her husband nominated both the wives after retirement in the pension papers and hence she was entitled for 50% share of fam