IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY. THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 22391 OF 2014 Between: 1. C. Lakshmamma, W/o Late Sambasiva Rao Aged about 85 years (died), resident of D.No. 11, Women Complex, M.R.Palle Tirupati, Chittoor District. Smt. Kalikiri Rani, W/o Late K. Nagaraja Aged about 62 years. Housewife, Resident of D. No. 1-1, Women Complex M. R. Palli, Tirupati, Tirupati District. 2. (Petitioner No.2 brought on record as LR to the Deceased 1st Petitioner, as per Court Order dated 11.11.2024 vide I.A.No. 1 of 2024 in WP No.22391 of2014) ...Petitioners AND Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati Chittoor district rep. by its Registrar. The State of AP Represented by its Principal Secretary, Finance (Pen.l) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh. (Respondent No.2 impleaded as per Court Order dated 07.01.2025 vide I.A.No.2 of 2024 in WP No.22391 of 2014.) 1. 2. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the Memo issued by the respondent in Proceedings No. 15586/Pension-2/2001 dated 2.07.2014 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to sanction family pension forthwith with arrears from the date of death of deceased employee. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014fWPMP. NO: 28080 OF 2014) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to sanction family pension to the petitioner forthwith by suspending the Memo issued by the respondent in proceedings No.15586/Pension-2/2001 dated 2.07.2014, pending disposal oftheW.P. Counsel for the Petitioner No.1 : SRI. A JAGANNADHA RAO Counsel for the Petitioner No.2: SRI NUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MUTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKAR ( SC FOR SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following order: '66 APHC010690082014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY. THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 22391/2014 Between; C. Lakshmamma, Chittoor Dist. and Others ...PETITIONER{S) AND Registrar S V University Tirupati and Others Counsel for the Petitloner(S): ...RESPONDENT(S) 1.NUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY 2.A JAGANNADHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKAR ( SC FOR SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY 2.. The Court made the following Order: The petitioners who filed the writ petition are the mother and sister of the deceased employee, who was working as a Housekeeper at S.V.U. College Hostel for Women, Tirupati. The said employee was unmarried and passed away on 05.06.2001 due to ill health. Petitioner No.1 submits that her f 2 daughter (Petitioner No.2) served as a full-time employee of the University and that she, being the dependentmother, is entitled to a family pension. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that one Sri T. 2. Narayana filed O.P. No. 6 of 2004, claiming that the petitioners’ daughter was his second wife and that their marriage took place on 01.05.1992. The said O.P. was dismissed. It is also submitted that Sri T. Narayana was convicted for making a false claim and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two (02) years. The petitioners submitted a representation seeking the grant of a family pension to the dependent mother. However, the respondents have not considered the said representation. The petitioners also approached the Lokayukta, Hyderabad, and sought the intervention of the said statutory authority. The respondents thereafter sanctioned gratuity as per Clause (4) of the Employees' Revised Pension Rules in favor of the petitioners and also issued impugned proceedings dated 02.07.2014, informing the petitionersthat she is not entitled to a family pension in view of G.O. (P) No. 523, dated 22.06.2004. It is submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner No.1 passed away on 02.06.2020, and the other daughter of petitioner No.2 was brought on record as a legal heir. It is also submitted that petitioner No.1 3. was entitled to a family pension and that G.O.(P) No.523, dated 22.06.2004, does not disentitle the parents of an employee who passed away prior to the issuance of the said G.O. to a family pension. 3 'm The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent University submits that the petitioners cannot claim family pension as, on the date of her daughter's death, there was no provision for granting family pension to a dependent parent, and reliance is placed on G.O.(P).No.523, dated 22.06.2004. It is also submitted that the respondents, vide proceedings dated 4. 29.04.2014, granted the gratuity amount to petitioner No.1. It is further submitted that the grant of family pension must be backed by a rule or any statutory provision, including the G.O. Since G.O.(P).No.523, dated 22.06.2004, was issued with prospective effect, the claim of petitioner No.1 cannot be considered. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned 5. Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is not in dispute that petitioner No.l's daughter/petitioner No.2 worked in the respondent University on a regular basis. 6. Even as per the counter, the petitioner’s daughter initially joined the service of the respondents as a temporary employee on 25.10.1993 and was absorbed as a House Keeper on 20.02.1996. It is also not in dispute that the employee passed away while in service on 05.06.2001. As on the date of her demise, she was in regular employment with the respondent university. Family pension ought to have been disbursed by the respondent university to the dependent mother, as the deceased employee was unmarried and had no first-class legal heirs. The mother was dependent and ought to have received the family pension from the respondent university. Applying G.O.(P).No.523, 7. 4 dated 22.06.2004, to the case of the petitioners and denying family pension to the petitioner is illogical. Even 22.06.2004, as seen from G.O.(P).No.523, dated it refers to G.O.Ms.No.114, Finance, dated 11.08.1999, G.O.Ms.No.156, dated 16.09.1999, and G.O.Ms.No.413, dated 04.12.2000. 8. Thus, the respondents have erred in denying the payment of family pension to the petitioner. The petitioner filed the writ petition when she was 85 years old. The respondents have exhibited insensitivity towards the senior citizen by denying the grant of family pension to the petitioner during her lifetime. Such action of the respondents is not appreciated by this Court, and the respondents are hereby directed to release the family pension due and payable to the deceased employee’s dependent. The respondents shall the family pension till the date of demise of petitioner No.1, who filed this petition, i.e., 02.06.2020. The family pension shall be calculated from 05.06.2001 to 02.06.2020 and shall be paid to the petitioners within of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed in part. There shall be no order pay writ a period 9. as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// pr % To. SECTION OFFICER 1. The Registrar, Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati Chittoor district. 2. The Principal Secretary, Finance (Pen.l) Department, State of AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh. 3. One CC to Sri. A Jagannadha Rao Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. Butta Vijaya Bhaskar ( SC for Sri Venkateswara University [OPUO 5. One CC to Sri. Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Finance Planning, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:19/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.22391 of 2014 'S 19 mar 2025 S Current Section . ^ PARTLY ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS