V. SATYANARAYNA MURTHY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief :

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner had working as a Junior Assistant in the 4threspondent school and he was retired from service on 30/11/2011. The petitioner's wife name was not included in the pension form by the 4th respondent, who in turn, forwarded the same to the 5th respondent. The petitioner's 2nd wife, namely, Sudhistnamma has sent her name and her 3 children names for including in the pension proposals, but the 4th respondent has neither included their names nor forwarded to 5th respondent. The 5th respondent withhold the retirement pension of the petitioner in pursuance of the interim orders passed by the competent civil court. Subsequently the civil court settled both families. In pursuance of the same, the 1st wife have got some retiremental benefits upto 40% then orally settled. Now, at present, the 2nd wife name in pension proposal was sent, but the 4th respondent without sending it to the 5th respondent, is highly illegal and arbitrary.

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying all the allegations made in the petition. It is further stated that, in response to the instructions issued by the Hon'ble APAT/Government/Commissioner of School Education/DEO, Pension proposals duly including the name of the applicants wife namely Smt. Sudhistnamma in the Pension proposals application of Family Member Column and forwarded the same to the 5th respondent i.e., the Accountant General, AP, Hyderabad. It is further stated that, the 5threspondent i.e., the Accountant General, AP, Hyderabad at Amaravathi vide PAG (A&E)/AP/PII/II/S3601/SP- 977/2013/01/278104, Dt 21/1/2019 duly marking a copy to the petitioner and Headmaster, GHS Pathapatnam has requested to submit the below mentioned copies to take further course of action.