Disposed¶36

N v. Sesha Kumari v the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Jan 2026WP/8009/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Family pension to widow of deceased retired government employee; retirement benefits payable despite pendency of disciplinary and criminal proceedings at employee's death; Rule 9(6), (7) and (8) and Rule 59, Revised Pension Rules, 1980; no embargo on grant of family pension; Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh; writ of mandamus under Article 226; direction to consider case and pass orders within two months; C.C.No.507 of 2015; Crl.A.No.468 of 2018; Justice D Ramesh; WP 8009/2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's case as per Rules 9(6), (7) and (8) and 59 of Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and pass appropriate orders within two months from receipt of a copy of the Order; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. ¶36

N v Sesha Kumari Vs the State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' non-payment of family pension to the petitioner, widow of the deceased employee, is illegal, improper, irregular, arbitrary and highhanded, and whether she is entitled to family pension on the death of her husband, a retired Government employee. +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

With regard to family pension, Rule 59 provides for the grant of family pension, and there is no embargo under the said rule on grant of family pension to the petitioner.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

Upon the death of the employee, even if disciplinary or criminal proceedings were pending, the petitioner is entitled to her share of the pension benefits in terms of Rule 9(6), (7) and (8) of the Revised Pension Rules, 1980.

¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), single Bench (Justice D Ramesh), disposed of Writ Petition No. 8009 of 2025 filed by the widow of a retired Executive Officer, Endowments Department, seeking family pension and the retirement benefits of her deceased husband, against whom departmental proceedings (punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect) and criminal proceedings (conviction in C.C.No.507 of 2015, appeal Crl.A.No.468 of 2018 pending at his death) had been recorded. Without going into the merits, the Court held that upon the death of the employee, even if disciplinary or criminal proceedings were pending, the widow is entitled to her share of the pension benefits in terms of Rule 9(6), (7) and (8) of the Revised Pension Rules, 1980, and that Rule 59 provides for the grant of family pension with no embargo on payment to the petitioner. The respondent authorities were directed to consider her case under those Rules and pass appropriate orders within two months of receipt of a copy of the Order.

¶1

[3208]

¶2

APHC010085202025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 8009/2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

N V SESHA KUMARI, W/O. LATE N.R.G. SHARMA, RTD. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD, R/O. D.NO. 20-463, FLAT NO.111, NEAR RURAL M.R.O. OFFICE, BOMMURU, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM-533124.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER VIGILANCE WING, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAWADA.

¶17

THE DISTRICT ENDOWMENTS OFFICER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ENDOMENTS DEPARTMENT, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not paying family pension to the petitioner, widow of the deceased employee, as illegal, improper, irregular, arbitrary and highhanded and consequence thereof direct the respondents to pay retirement benefits of deceased N.R.G. Sharma, Rtd. E.O. Grade-ll and to pay family pension to the petitioner on the death of her husband a retired Government Employee and to pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.S V R SUBRAHMANYAM

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶26

¶27

The Court made the following ORDER:-

¶28

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶29

“…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not paying family pension to the petitioner, widow of the deceased employee, as illegal, improper, irregular, arbitrary and highhanded and consequence thereof direct the respondents to pay retirement benefits of deceased N.R.G. Sharma, Rtd. E.O. Grade-ll and to pay family pension to the petitioner on the death of her husband a retired Government Employee …”

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents.

¶31

The case of the petitioner is that the respondents have initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner and the said proceedings were rendered with punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and subsequently, the husband of the petitioner was convicted in C.C.No.507 of 2015 on the file of learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Eluru. As against the same, the husband of the petitioner preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.468 of 2018 on the file of learned Family Court – cum – VII Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru. While pendency of the same, the husband of the petitioner died. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to family pension. Accordingly, she made an application to the respondent authorities but the respondent authorities have not considered and have not passed any orders. Hence, the writ petition.

¶32

¶33

Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents submitted that as against the husband of the petitioner, departmental proceedings as well as criminal proceedings are pending, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for release of pension and requested time to file counter.

¶34

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, and as this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case, it is held that upon the death of the employee, even if disciplinary or criminal proceedings were pending, the petitioner is entitled to her share of the pension benefits in terms of Rule 9(6), (7) and (8) of the Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Further, with regard to family pension, Rule 59 provides for the grant of family pension, and there is no embargo under the said rule on grant of family pension to the petitioner.

¶35

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner as per Rules 9(6), (7) and (8) and 59 of Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶36

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶37

_______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

Date: 22.01.2026

Dvs

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶42