PUTCHA SARADAMBA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, wife of late Krishna Murthy, who retired from service as stenographer on attaining the age of superannuation in Guntur District filed this writ petition seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent, Secretary to Government (LA & J) Department, in passing G.O. Ms. No.219, Law (LA&J Courts-D) Department, dated 30-10-1996, wherein the 2nd respondent refused to sanction family pension to the petitioner as it will create a bad precedent which will necessitate reopening of a number of cases which are similar in nature and it will also result in re-consideration of the whole issue on sanction of family pension to left over categories and as there has been a steep increase in the expenditure on pensions in the eight preceding years the Government is not in a position to take any further liability as illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition are that one Sri P. V. Krishna Murthy while working as stenographer in the Sub-ordinate Courts in the Guntur District exercised option under Liberalised Pension Rules, 1961 on 31-07-1964. These Rules were replaced by A.P Government Servants (Family Pension Rules 1964 (for short 'Family Pension Rules') and as per these Rules Family Pension is admissible to the family of a Government Servant who opted for the scheme of Family Pension under these Rules duly agreeing for deduction of two months emoluments from the death retirement gratuity. After these Rules came into force late Krishna Murthy opted for Family Pension scheme while he was working in District Munsif Court, Tenali on 17-10-1968. After expiry of the date stipulated for exercising option under these Rules Subsequently, he retired from service on 19-5-1970 on attaining the age of superannuation.

(3.) Before retirement he made a formal application, on 26-11-1968, seeking sanction of pension and gratuity admissible as per Rules by the date of his retirement i.e. 19-5-1970. Para 3.2 of the said application he stated that two copies of passport size photographs of him as well as combined photographs of himself and his wife duly attested were also enclosed to the application. After his retirement from service on 19-5-1970 before the pension was actually sanctioned to him he seemed to have filed for revised pension papers perhaps due to raise in his pay. While preparing the revised pension papers on 18-5-1970, he noticed that some necessary corrections pursuant to the option exercised by him under the Family Pension Rules on 17-10-1968 were not carried out in Form-A given on 31-7-1964 under Liberalised Pension Rules and by representation dated 22-6-1970 sent through proper channel requested the 5th respondent to condone the mistake in retaining Class-C for Class-B in Form-A and to permit him to exercise his option in favour of Family Pension as provided in Class-B thereof as per nomination in Form-E on 17-10-1968.