First wife sought family pension of a deceased Revenue Officer, alleging the nominee respondent was not legally wedded. The court found a serious dispute over marital status, held the petitioner failed to prove her status as wife, and dismissed the writ petition without costs, leaving her free to approach a civil forum.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
^ *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 4329 OF 2023
Between:
Smt. KONDREDDI RAMAKRIHNAMMA, W/o Late Baya Reddy,Hindu, aged about 65 years, D.No.11-320, bandusab Street,ValisabRoad, Kadiri, Ananthapuram District.
...PETITIONER
AND
(<
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiaprayingthatin the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,theHighCourtmay be pleased to issue a writ order or direction moreparticularlyawritof Mandamus declare the inaction on the part of the Respondents1to6innot releasing the Family Pension in favour of the petitionerpertainingtotheher husband Sri Kondreddy Baya Reddy, PPO, 1.D.NO.10030821,iscontraryto the Rule 50 (6)(a)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Revised PensionRules1980as illegal and arbitrary and unconstitutional and as itisviolativeofArticles14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequentlytodirectthe Respondents 1 to 6 to release the Family Pension tothePetitionerasper law, forthwith.
lA NO: 2 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,theHighCourtmaybe pleased to grant leave to the petitioner/respondent No.7 to file counter affidavit in the Writ Petition No.4329 of 2023.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,theHighCourtmaybe pleased to direct the Respondents 1 to 6 to consider the Legal dated.29.6.2021 issued by the petitioner and Notice/Representation consequently to direct the Respondents to release theFamilyPensiontothe Petitioner pertaining to the husband of the PetitionerSriKondreddyBaya
Reddy , PRO, l.D.NO.10030821, forthwith, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.
SRI. S SYAMSUNDER RAO Counsel for the Petitioner GP FOR SERVICES IV Counsel for the Respondent R3 ; KALAVA SURESH KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent R2
KATA SAM BAS I VARAO Counsel for the Respondent R7
The Court made the following; ORDER
' V
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION No.4329 of 2023
Kondreddi Ramakrishnamma, W/o Late Baya Reddy, Hindu, aged about 65 years, D.No.11320, Bandusab Street, Valisab Road, Kadiri, Ananthapuram District.
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration,Gorantia, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh and six others.
... Respondents
. Counsel for the petitioners
: Sri S. Syam Sunder Rao
Counsel for respondents ; GP for Services-I: Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned standing counsel and Sri K. Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel
:: ORDER ::
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief;
to issue a writ order or direction more particularlyawrit of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the Respondents 1 to 6 in not releasing the Family Pension in favour of the petitioner pertaining to her husband Sri Kondreddy Baya Reddy, PPO, I.D.No.10030821, is contrary to the Rule 50 (6)(a)(i) of Andhra Pradesh RevisedPension
Page 2 of 13
SRSJ WP No.4329 of 2023
Rules, 1980 as illegal and arbitrary and unconstitutional and as it is violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the Respondents 1 to 6 to release the Family Pension to the Petitioner as per law, forthwith, and pass necessary order/s...”
Page 3 of 13
SRSJ WP No.4329 of 2023
respondent Nos.1 to 6 to release the family pensioninherfavour. On 27.07.2021, petitioner and respondent No.7 agreedtoreceive family pension equally and the same was reduced intowriting. Respondent No.7 paid half share of the family pensionforfour months and later she stopped paying half of the pensionamount. Late Baya Reddy, during his lifetime, executed an unregistered Will dated 06.07.2005 and made arrangements for family pension. As per Rule 50(6)(a)(i) of the Andhra PradeshRevised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short ‘the Rules’), ‘where family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pensionshallbe paid to widows in equal shares. Petitioner is the firstwifeofsaid Baya Reddy and there is no marriage between the deceased employee and respondent No.7. With these averments,theabove writ petition is filed.
- A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondentNo.2. It was contended, inter alia, that late Baya Reddy,workedas Revenue Officer in Ananthapuram Corporation. At his request, he was transferred to Kadiri Municipality. While he was working as Revenue Inspector at Kadiri Municipality, he retired from the service, on 31.03.2005 on attaining the age of superannuation.
Page 4 of 13
SRSJ WPNo.4329 of 2023
After retirement, he made representation to the Kadiri Municipality for pension and pensioner benefits. The CommissionerofKadiri Municipality forwarded the representation for the preparation of pension proposals. Accordingly, the management addressedthe deceptive rolls of Baya Reddy with a joint photo oftheservice pensioner in an annexure, for preparation of pension proposals to the Audit authorities, through the Commissioner, Kadiri Municipality. Accordingly, the deceptive rolls with his photo and joint photo with the family pension beneficiary were submitted. showing the name of respondent No.7 as his wife, andhername was included as a nominee, in his nomination papers. Accordingly, pension proposals were forwarded to Commissioner, Kadiri Municipality, for sanction of pension. The auditauthorities sanctioned the pension making respondent No.7 as nomineeof the pensioner as per the deceptive rolls and joint photo submitted by the pensioner. As per the death certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat, Kothavuru, Baya Reddy died on 20.05.2021. In the death certificate, respondent No.7’s name is shownas his wife. The petitioner neither produced proper documents nor made any application for the family pension. Respondent No.2isnotaware
Page 5 of 13
SRSJ WP No.4329 of 2023
v%r
entered between the petitioner and of the compromise respondent No.7. Eventually, prayed to dismiss thewritpetition
Page 6 of 13
SRSJ WPNo.4329 of 2023
'4
wife of late Baya Reddy. Without establishing the said fact, the petitioner cannot claim family pension along with respondent No.7. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
- Heard Sri S. Syam Sunder Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S. Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 & 5, Sri Kalava Suresh Kumar Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondentNo.2and Sri N. Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel representing Sri K. Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.7.
Page 7 of 13
SRSJ WP No.4329 of 2023
others\ and Secretary, Lucy Sequeira Trust and another v. Kailash Ramesh Tandel and Others^
is 10. The point for consideration is whether the petitioner entitled to the relief sought in the writ petition? 11. The relief in the writ petition is to declare the inactiononthe part of respondent Nos.1 to 6 in releasing family pension to the petitioner on the death of Baya Reddy, who worked as a Revenue Officer in Ananthapuramu Municipal Corporation.
' 2023 see Online AP 1690 . ^(2019) 6 see 155
Page 8 of 13
SRSJ WPNo.4329 of 2023
■'fe
the status of wife of late Baya Reddy, no material is placed before this Court to substantiate the said contention. Though the petitioner got issued legal notice, she did not submit any application before the authority claiming family pension.Petitioner filed Ex.P3, unregistered Will, dated 06.07.2005 said to have been executed by Baya Reddy, and Ex.P5, agreement dated 27.07.2021 said to have been entered among the petitioner, respondent No.7, and two others. The copy of Aadhaar, Ex.P6, does not indicate that the petitioner is the wife of late Baya Reddy. In voter identity card, Ex.P7, it was mentioned that the petitioner is the wife of Baya Reddy. This court is conscious that EXS.P6 and P7 are required to be proved by lettingevidence. Hence, no finding is recorded as to their genuineness at this stage.
- The plea of the petitioner is that she is the first wife, whereas respondent No.7 is the second wife of Baya Reddy. Respondent No.7 denied the same and pleaded that she is the legally wedded wife of late Baya Reddy. Thus, there exists a serious dispute regarding the status of the petitionerasthewife
Page 9 of 13
SRSJ WP No.4329 of 2023
of Baya Reddy, be it first or second wife. Unless thepetitioner proves the said factum, she is not entitled to thefamilypension.
- Rule 50(6)(a)(i) of the Rules prescribes that wherefamily pension is payable to more widows than one, the familypension shall be paid to widows in equal shares. For applyingthesaid rule, the petitioner, in the first place must demonstrateandprove her marriage and status as the wife of late Baya Reddy.
pension. Of course
Page 10 of 13
SRSJ WPNo.4329 of 2023
family pension only. If there are two widows the nominee must share the pension equally to the other widow. Indeed, Rule 50(6)(a)(i) of the Rules is a beneficiary provisionin favour of the woman with whom the government employee comes in contact during the subsistence of the first marriage. The provision is, therefore, required to be construed liberally to achieve its very object of the grant of family pension after the death of a government employee, to the extent reasonably possibletomake available to both the wives, the family pension.
^(2014) 1 see 188
Page 11 of 13
SRSJ WPNo.4329 of 2023
V,
%
of India. It was also observed that the Courts have to adopt different approaches in ‘social justice adjudication’,alsoknownas ‘social context adjudication’ as mere ‘adversarial approach’ may not be appropriate.
- The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that the provisionof maintenance would fall in this category which aims at empowering the destitute and achieving social justiceorequality and dignity of the individual. While dealing with casesunderthis provision, a drift in the approach from “adversarial”litigation to social context adjudication is the need of the hour.
Page 12 of 13
SRSJ WP No.4329 of 2023
approach the competent forum (Civil Court) seeking redressal, but not filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India. This Court while exercising jurisdiction underArticle226of the Constitution of India, will not adjudicate into disputed questions of facts. The other judgment cited by learnedcounsel for the petitioner, is also not applicable to the factsofthiscase.
- Given the discussion supra this Court does not find any merits in this writ petition and is liable to be dismissed.
Any observation made by this Court in this order is only to render the decision. The observations will not come in the way of the petitioner in proving Exs.PS and P5 and claiming benefits before the competent court.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,shall
stand closed.
To,
JS
COURT
SRS, J
DATED;24/07/2024
ORDER
X 1 9 SEP 202'J ms
WP.No.4329 of 2023 ■rent Section ^w
'SPATC'^^Sd^
-y.
DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, claiming to be the first wife of the deceased employee, was entitled to family pension under Rule 50(6)(a)(i) of the AP Revised Pension Rules, 1980.
Whether a writ court under Article 226 could adjudicate the disputed factual question of the petitioner's marital status.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gaddam Ruth Victoria v. State of A.P.Distinguished¶15
2023 see Online AP 1690
Secretary, Lucy Sequeira Trust and another v. Kailash Ramesh Tandel and OthersReferred¶20
(2019) 6 see 155
Badshah v. Urmilla Badshah GodseRelied on¶17
(2014) 1 see 188
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Kondreddi Ramakrishnamma
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration
Ananthapuram Municipal Corporation
Joint Director, Municipal Administration, Ananthapuram
District Audit Officer, State Audit Office, Ananthapuram
Sub-Treasury Officer, Kadiri
Subba Reddy Satti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
