APHC010610152025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 31669/2025 Between: Nivagana Sarala ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.31669 of 2025 O R DE R: The Writ Petition is filed questioning the Proceedings issued vide Rc.No.2867/A3/2024, dated 13.08.2025, by the Respondent No.3 in directing the Petitioner to submit a Succession Certificate for the purpose of terminal benefits of the late Nivagana Divakar Rao (for short, „the deceased‟) as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts leading to filing of the present Writ Petition as are follows: The husband of the Petitioner by name Nivagana Divakar Rao, had married the Petitioner on 22.01.1998 and they were blessed with three children by name Deena Vinutna, Ashish Kumar and Jevvan. While so, in the course of time, the husband of the Petitioner died while in service on 01.11.2024. The Petitioner submitted an application for a grant of family pension and terminal benefits. It is stated that the Respondent No. 5 had also applied for a family pension and terminal benefits, and therefore, the Petitioner was directed to submit the Succession 3 Certificate to establish her entitlement. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader on instructions submits that as per the Service Register of the Deceased, the name of „Ratnakumari‟ is shown as wife apart from three sons by name Jagadeesh, Anil Kumar, and Ashirwad Kumar. However, in the instructions, it is mentioned that in the Bhadratha Card of the Deceased, the name of the Petitioner and her children are mentioned. As there are rival claims for the terminal benefits, the impugned order cannot be faulted. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that as per the Judgment of this Court in Gaddam Ruth Victoria v. State of A.P.[1], the second wife is also entitled to 50% of the family pension on the aspect of social security. He further submits that the Family Pension is a right of the Petitioner, and therefore, the extent of directing the Petitioner to approach the Civil Court for a Succession Certificate even for the Family Pension cannot be sustained. 4 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the aspect of Family Pension claimed by the Petitioner would be examined in terms of the judgment referred to by the Petitioner but, however, submits that the issue with regard to the terminal benefits being part of the estate of the deceased will be sanctioned after appropriate declaration by the Civil Court. 6. Heard the respective counsel. 7. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gaddam Ruth Victoria, referred to supra, examined the issue of whether a second wife is entitled to a family pension and, after examining the rules and the case law, held that the second wife would also be entitled to a family pension. Paragraph No. 49 of the Judgment is extracted below: “ In our view, Rule 50 of the Rules, 1980 is with intend to give relief to the woman becoming wife. Under such circumstances, even the wife from the second marriage was made entitled for family pension, as the main object of this rule was to give family pension to the wives i.e., more than one, and for that reason, to clarify the expression ‘wife’ used in Rule 50 (12) of the Rules, 1980, Circular Memo dated 11.09.1996 was issued providing that irrespective of the personal laws. The only thing that requires consideration is the permission from the department for second marriage”. 5 8. In view of the fact that the name of the Petitioner is reflected in the „Bhadratha Certificate‟ given to the Police Personnel by the Police Department as wife, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: i) The Respondent Authorities are directed to examine the case of the Petitioner for grant of Family Pension along with Respondent No.5 in terms of the Judgment in the case of „Gaddam Ruth Victoria v State of AP’ referred supra, after giving notice to the Respondent No.5. ii) The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. iii) As regards the terminal benefits, the Petitioner has to establish her case over the same in a proper constituted Civil Suit before the competent Civil Court. iv) There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 20.11.2025 eha 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 31669/2025 Dt. 20.11.2025 eha