advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Saturday, June 1, 2013

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 predeceases the pensioner and sons/daughters become ineligible for the Family Pension; and Smt. Sajida Bano, who has been settled and paid family pension, as she is rightly entitled to be paid the same. Unfortunately, Smt Sajida Bano died on 06.03.2012. Hence, the question of payment of family pension to any other member in the family would not simply arise. Family pension, to my mind, is liable to be paid either to the spouse of the deceased pensioner, provided such a spouse is surviving, or to any other eligible family members organized to fall in category I and category II of G.O.Ms.No.315. For others to secure eligibility for sanction of family pension, the spouse must pre-decease the pensioner but not otherwise. In the instant case, the spouse of the pensioner Smt. Sajida Bano survived him and hence, the petitioner is not eligible to be granted family pension and the fact that the Corporation rejected her candidature on some other that ground is of not much of a legal significance for her claim to be upheld.

reported in / published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=9882

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO            

WRIT  PETITION No.13243 of 2013  

29-04-2013

MISS MEHER BANO                                 ..      PETITIONER            

GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY ITS PRINICIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT                      
ENERGY DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS  ..   RESPONDENTS                    

Counsel for the petitioner      :   Sri Syed Mushtaq Ahmed

Counsel for the respondents:  Sri P. Laxma Reddy

<Gist:

>Head Note:

?CITATIONS:

O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is preferred by a 51-year-old daughter of         Sri Syed
Khundmir, who had retired on 31.03.1991 after serving as a Personnel Officer
with the Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation (AP TRANSCO) at Hyderabad.  
Prior to his death      Sri Syed Khundmir filed his pension papers with the AP
TRANSCO disclosing his family particulars.  
He declared  Smt. Sajida Bano as his
wife and also disclosed the names of his six daughters and one son, duly
mentioning the respective dates of birth of those individuals. 
 It is not in
dispute that Sri Syed Khundmir received all his pensionary benefits so long as
he was alive and he appears to have died on 16.09.2004.  
Thereafter, Smt. Sajida
Bano, the widow of Sri Syed Khundmir has been paid the family pension by the AP 
TRANSCO, as she is eligible to receive the same.
Smt Sajida Bano died on 06.03.2012.
Therefore, the writ petitioner herein has filed an application for
grant of family pension to her on the ground that she was the unmarried daughter of Sri Syed Khundmir and hence, she is entitled to be granted the family pension.  
She also enclosed family members certificate given by the Tahsildar,
Bandlaguda, Hyderabad District, where the names of five daughters and the son of
Sri Syed Khundmir were noted.  Excepting the petitioner, rest of the daughters
were declared as house wives being married women, by the Tahsildar. The son of
Sri Syed Khundmir was also married and he is employed in a private organization
as per the said certificate.  Since the petitioner was the only family member,
who remained unmarried, she sought for payment of family pension.
That was
rejected by the AP TRANSCO, through their communication dated 31.07.2012.  It is 
observed in the said order that the details of the family members and their
status submitted by the original pensioner, namely Sri Syed Khundmir are not
tallying with the family particulars furnished by the petitioner herein and
hence, the AP TRANSCO has declared that the petitioner is not eligible for
sanction of family pension as the unmarried daughter, in terms of T.O.O Ms. No.
333 dated 12.11.2010.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that this
action of the respondents is grossly illegal and is contrary to the scheme
adopted by the AP TRANSCO for sanction of pension as well as family pension.
Further, the particulars relating to the petitioner, if, have been furnished by
the father wrongly, the petitioner is very much entitled to have correct
information reflected in the records relating to the pensioner and hence, the
respondents have committed a gross irregularity in not taking into account and
consideration the status certificate furnished by the Tahsildar, Bandlaguda, who
did so upon conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter.
Heard Ms. Sridevi, learned counsel deputizing for                   Sri P.
Lakshma Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, who has accepted notice on behalf of
the respondents.
The Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh has announced its policy decision 
through T.O.O Ms. No.333, dated 12.11.2010 adopting the orders passed by the 
State Government contained in their G.O. Ms. No. 315, Finance (Pension-I)
Department, dated 07.10.2010 in respect of the employees of the erstwhile Andhra
Pradesh State Electricity Board who joined the service of the Transmission
Corporation prior to 01.02.1999 and presently working in AP TRANSCO  and also 
pensioners/family pensioners of AP TRANSCO.
The order passed by the State  
Government in their G.O.Ms. No. 315 Finance (Pension-I) Department, dated 
07.10.2010 is placed at page 42 of the paper book filed along with the Writ
Petition.  
In paragraph 3 thereof, the recommendations made by the IX Pay
Revision Commission together with the Government of India orders and the
requests of various associations have been summarized and they read as under.
"       The Ninth Pay Revision Commission, after due consideration of the existing
Family Pension Rules and Government of India orders and the requests of various
Associations, inter alia, recommended the following in respect of sanction of
Family Pension. 

(i) Categorisation of eligible beneficiaries of family pensioners into two
categories as per the orders issued by Government of India in their O.M.
F.No.38/37/08- P&PW (A); dated 02.09.2008 of Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances & Pensions, Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare, New Delhi;
(ii) Continuation of payment of family pension to the childless widow even after
her remarriage as per the orders issued by Government of India in their O.N.F.No.38/37/08- P&PW (A), dated 02.09.2008 of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare, New Delhi;  
(iii) 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 predeceases the pensioner and sons/daughters become ineligible for the Family Pension; and
(iv) Sanction of family pension to the daughters of deceased pensioners who became widowed/divorced either before or after the date of issue of the G.O.Ms.No.523 i.e. 22.06.2004." 
Thereafter, in paragraph 4 of the said order, it was declared that the
government decided to accept the above recommendations of the Pay Revision  
Commission and hence, issued the orders contained therein.  
According to the
learned counsel for the petitioner, unmarried or widowed or divorced daughters
are organized to fall in category II, whereas a son/daughter (including widowed
daughter) up to the date of his/her marriage, remarriage or till the date he/she
starts earning or till the age of 25 years, whichever is the earliest, is
classified to fall in category I.  According to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, since the case of the petitioner falls under category II,
irrespective of the fact that she is beyond 25 years of age as of now, she must
be paid the family pension by the respondents.
I am afraid, this contention does not hold any merit.  As was noticed supra, IX
Pay Revision Commissioner has recommended payment of family pension to the  
widowed/divorced daughter, irrespective whether she became widowed/divorced
either before or after the retirement of the employee, provided the spouse
pre-deceases the pensioner and the other sons/daughters become ineligible for
family pension.
Therefore, for grant of family pension in favour of either an
unmarried daughter or a widowed daughter or a divorced daughter, the condition
pre-requisite was the death of the spouse of the pensioner.
If the spouse of
the pensioner is surviving him/her after his/her death, it is that spouse, who
is eligible to receive the family pension, but not any other person, either
falling in category I or category II.
As was noticed supra, in the instant
case, the pensioner Sri Syed Khundmir died on 16.09.2004 leaving behind Smt.
Sajida Bano as his widow.
It is
Smt. Sajida Bano, who has been settled and paid
family pension, as she is rightly entitled to be paid the same.  
Unfortunately,
Smt Sajida Bano died on 06.03.2012.  
Hence, the question of payment of family
pension to any other member in the family would not simply arise.  
Family
pension, to my mind, is liable to be paid either to the spouse of the deceased
pensioner, provided such a spouse is surviving, or to any other eligible family
members organized to fall in category I and category II of G.O.Ms.No.315.  
For
others to secure eligibility for sanction of family pension, the spouse must
pre-decease the pensioner but not otherwise.
In the instant case, the spouse of the pensioner Smt. Sajida Bano survived him
and hence, the petitioner is not eligible to be granted family pension and the
fact that the Corporation rejected her candidature on some other that ground is
of not much of a legal significance for her claim to be upheld.  I therefore, do
not find any merit in this writ petition and  accordingly, the same is dismissed
at the admission stage.  No costs.
Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any shall also stand dismissed.

________________________  
NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J        
29th April 2013

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.