1 APHC010398392019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 19122/2019 Between: T.h. Basha ...PETITIONER AND State Of A P Higher Education Department and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K KOUTILYA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MANIKYA VEENA M (SC FOR PADMAVATHI MAHILA UNIVERSITY) 2. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: “…..to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned proceedings in R.O.C.No.702/Estt/NT/E/2019 dated 09-10-2019 of the 2nd Respondent in granting of family pension to the Petitioner without settling the entire pensionary benefits including the arrears of pension as illegal and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and Rule 9(8) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 consequently set aside those proceedings with a 2 direction to the 2nd Respondent to release the entire pension, arrears of pension and other retiral benefits with bank interest to the Petitioner and pass such other order or orders……” 2. Heard Sri K.Koutilya, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, appearing for the 1st respondent and Ms.M.Manikya Veena, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is the husband of the deceased employee of the University of respondent No.2, by name Smt.Z.A.Zarthash. She had taken voluntary retirement in the year 2008 due to her health issues. A memo has been issued by the Audit Department in the year 2015. Unfortunately, she died in the year 2019. The petitioner being the spouse, is entitled for family pension. Due to the audit objections, she could not get full pension. A provisional pension is only granted to her. Learned counsel would further submit that initially, the deceased worked as a Junior Assistant in S.V.University. Later, deputed to work in the University of respondent No.2. Thereafter, she got promotions as the Superintendent, Assistant Registrar and Deputy Registrar. Ultimately, the Audit Department has taken objection that she has not passed Account Test which is meant for Subordinate Officers. Learned counsel would submit that respondent No.2 issued proceedings granting family pension to the petitioner without settling entire pensionary benefits including arrears, is not sustainable. Learned counsel finally submits that a direction may be given 3 to respondent No.2 to release the entire pension along with arrears with bank interest to the petitioner. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Government Pleader for Higher Education would submit that the audit objections were placed before the Executive Committee and the Executive Committee has taken a decision and passed a resolution dated 31.10.2019 to approve the objections raised by audit office, accordingly directed to revise the pay and fix pensionary benefits to the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the pay of the deceased is fixed vide proceedings dated 15.06.2020 in the cadre of Senior Assistant. The proposals are sent to State Audit. They have certified vide S.A.No.200, dated 04.03.2021. The University has also addressed a letter to the petitioner to submit the fresh proposal vide communication dated 01.12.2021. After receiving the pension proposal forms from the petitioner, the University shall proceed with the matter and release the full pension along with arrears of retirement and attendant benefits of the deceased to the petitioner being his spouse. 5. Considering the submissions and a fair look at the material placed on record, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get the family pension of his wife according to governing rules and law. The facts on record would show that originally the deceased is an employee of Sri Venkateswara University and joined in 1976. Thereafter, she joined as L.D.C. on deputation in the University of respondent No.2 on 09.06.1983. She was absorbed as an 4 employee of the University in the cadre of Senior Assistant on 10.10.1983. She could got promotion as Superintendent on 22.09.1988, as Assistant Registrar on 09.10.1998 and as Deputy Registrar on 09.06.2005. It is also not in dispute that she took voluntary retirement and relieved on 30.08.2008. The provisional pension has been granted to her with effect from 01.09.2008. Whereas, the audit objections are communicated on 07.09.2015. The State Audit raised objections regarding the sanction of notional increments during the time of extraordinary leave availed by the deceased without Government permission. The second objection raised by the audit is to the effect that the promotion of the deceased as Assistant Registrar is without obtaining the Accounts Test of Subordinate Officers Part-I. Therefore, pay has to be revised. Hence, provisional pension was granted to the deceased. The issue postponed till her death. Then the petitioner, who is her husband, preferred the present writ petition seeking full pension, arrears along with interest. 6. As can be seen from the counter, the University has sanctioned notional increments during the period of E.L. dated 29.11.1993 to 30.05.1997. A proposal has been sent to the Government for ratification. But the Government rejected the sanction of increments during the extraordinary leave period vide orders dated 18.03.2000. The fact remains that notional increments granted without prior approval of the Government and the writ petition is filed which was dismissed in that regard. Accordingly, the Executive Committee passed resolution in approval of the audit objections. As per the 5 latest instructions received from the University, now her pay is fixed as per her eligibility in the cadre of Senior Assistant and the University expressed his readiness to process pension proposal to enable the petitioner to receive full pension. 7. The fact remains that three increments sanctioned to the deceased for a period of three years while she was in E.O.L. is not correct that was not ratified by the Government. In fact, the proposal was rejected. That apart, the deceased yet to qualify Accounts Test for Subordinates Officers Part-I for getting promotion to the post of Superintendent and above. In the absence of such qualification, her promotion was considered by the University. The record shows on oral assurance of the individual, they have considered her promotion, which is irregular one and in violation of the rules. 8. In that view, it is apposite to dispose of the writ petition with the following observations. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the petitioner is directed to submit fresh pension proposal forms as requested by the respondent authorities forthwith and on submission of such proposals, the authorities shall consider the case of the deceased, who is the wife of the petitioner in the cadre of Senior Assistant. The 2nd respondent is directed to take necessary steps immediately for fixing the full pension to the petitioner as per governing rules and law. This exercise has to be completed within a 6 period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 25.03.2025 ARR 7 228 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 19122/2019 Dt.25.03.2025 ARR