MEHER BANO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.