Allowed

Smt. Laxmi Bai, v. The General Manager

Telangana HC5 Dec 2011WP/32048/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the respondent's failure to release family pension to the petitioner. The court found the petitioner was the registered nominee of the deceased husband. The respondent was directed to consider the claim and pass appropriate orders releasing the pension within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's case for releasing family pension and pass appropriate orders within two months.

Smt. Laxmi Bai, Vs The General Manager — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE FIFTHE DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶5

W.P. No.32048 of 2011

¶6

Between:

¶7

Smt.Laxmi Bai … Petitioner and The General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad.

¶8

… Respondent

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶10

W.P. No.32048 of 2011

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not releasing the family pension of the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice.

¶13

The case of the petitioner is that she is wife of late Rama Rao Tukaram, who was an employee in the South Central Railway and expired on 10.04.2010. It is submitted that her name is recorded as nominee of her husband in the service register of Sri late Rama Rao Tukaram.

¶14

It is her grievance that she made a representation dated 20.12.2010 for releasing of family pension to the Senior D.P.O., Hyderabad Division and in response to which, she received a letter dated 05.05.2011 advising that she may represent her case in Secunderabad Division, as the Pension Payment Order was issued by the Secunderabad Division, without proper verification of the records. Hence, she filed the present writ petition.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is wife of late Rama Rao Tukaram, who served in the South Central Railway and expired on 10.04.2010. Consequent to death of her husband, she is entitled to family pension. It is also

¶16

submitted that there is no other person claiming family pension. He further submitted that even in spite of personal approach of the petitioner, the respondent is not considering her case. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record.

¶18

From a perusal of the record, it appears that late Rama Rao Tukaram was an employee of the respondent worked as Steam Crane Driver/LGD opted voluntary retirement and later on he expired on 10.04.2010. Pension Payment Order was issued by the Senior Divisional Financial Manager, Secunderabad Division. After his death, the petitioner appears to have made a representation claiming family pension and in response to which, she also received a letter dated 05.05.2011 advising her to represent her case in Secunderabad Division, as the pension payment order was issued by the Secunderabad Division. Even in spite of her personal approach to the respondent, her case has not been considered. Hence, she is before this Court.

¶19

In that view of the matter and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for releasing the family pension, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶22

Date: 05.12.2011 LSK

Smt. Laxmi Bai, v. The General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Laxmi Bai, v. The General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Ramakoteshwar Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal

M. Srinivasulu Vs The Union of India

Smt.B.a.Appala Narasmma, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

B. Ramulu, Vs The Managing Director

D. Keshava Reddy Vs The Commissioner

A.S. Reddy Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc