Allowed

K. Lalitha, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Mar 2025WP/30789/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed a writ petition seeking family pension. The High Court held that the petitioner, a divorced daughter living separately from her husband since before her father's death, qualifies under Category-II of the relevant Government Order and directed authorities to process the pension within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to process and sanction the family pension to the petitioner within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

K. Lalitha, Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

I I I I I : l l i

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE S'

¶3

I^s3oo ] ;;" :,^j i*ifl..:fl#:,::;^, " ^,^

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

Between:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTIC ENAGE SH BHEEMAPAKA wRIT PETITtoN NO: 307890F2018

¶7

K. Lalitha, D/O. K. Narsimlon"o 40 years occ Hor Lingamaih Hold' R/o. 7-95lA, rr, Medak -so2o32,r",rnnult" "",""r,^or.lrr,''

¶8

AND

¶9

"'PETlrloNER

¶10

1 The state of Terangana, Rep. by its principar secr Finance (Pension-l), Hyoeraoao retary, Department of

¶11

!^{The Managing} Director, Hyderabad Metropolitan Wi Board (HMwsSB) Khairtabad, Hyderabad. ater Supply and Sewerage

¶12

1. The General Manager

¶13

sewerase ,",,0 rnlrTJ:,] #iji::. J:,,"J"," water suppry and laint - Division No.. ilr, Navodaya corony -Guddimarkapur, Hyd. _28

¶14

..,RESPONDENTS

¶15

petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or Direct. the nature of writ of Mandamus, d rectins ,n" o".o"ll"Iij;;"#':'J":::J the case of the Petitione r for Avaitir,^ rha ra*;r.. ^^_ pension under the G'o Ms. 315, Dated. 07.10.20.10 against ilJ;:[lnfamirv

¶16

IANO:1OF 2018

¶17

petition under Section j51 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to pass

¶18

the^{familypensionto the} orders^{directingthe Respondents herein':} ':"]"i't" '' Petitioner^{during the pendingdisposal of the Writ Petition}

¶19

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRI' RAJASHEKAR THALLAPALLY} Counsel^{for the Respondent No'1: GPFOR FINANCE PLANNING} Gounset^{ror the Respondent Nos' 2&3: t*'} 3;X=ET=3t5U$Sft

¶20

3;X=ET=3t5U$Sft

¶21

The^{Court made the following:ORDER}

¶22

;:aiti&* -

¶23

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEBMAPAKA

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.3 0789 of 2018

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Writ Petition^{is filed seeking} the following relief:

¶27

" to issue an appropriate Writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ oif l4andamu.s directing the re.rpondents herein to consider the case of the^petitioner for availing the family pension under the G.O.Ms.No.3l5 Dateel 07.10.2010 against the Ccttegory No.II and pass appropriate order forthwith. "

¶28

The petitioner^{is the youngest} daughter of late Sri. K. Narsimha,^{who was Tech. Gr.} I (TB) in the respondent_ Department,^{and retired on 30.04.2005} and passed away on 31.01 .2010.^{The petitioner's} morher, Smt. K.^yellamma, predeceased^{him on 23.06.2007.-l-he} petitioner was married in 1996 b]ut^{faced marital disputes} and lived separately from her husband^{during her father's} lifetime. Following her father,s demise,,^{the petitioner obtaineda} divorce decree in O.p. No. 32 of 20ll^{. Petitioner contends her} financial dependence on her father^{during his lifetimeand her inability} to sustain herself post his^{demise due to lack ol employment} or income. Her siblings,^{comprisingthree brothers} who are agricultural laborers^{and a married sister, have provided} a notarized,

¶29

¶30

affidavit^{of no-objectiondated15'05'2017' consenting to her} receiving^{their father's familypension' Petitionerhas submitted} all^{requisitedocuments' includingthefamily member} cerlificate^{dated 17'08'2015' hnancial status ceftificatedated} 05.08.20^{15, and multiplerepresentations'the latestbeing on} 20.12.2016.^{Despite complying with all} procedural requirements^{and being eligible under Category-tIof} G.o.Ms.No.315,Finance(Pension-I)Depaftment'dated 0T.l0.20l0,thepetitionerhasnotbeengrantedthetamily pension^{by the respondents; hence' the present writ petltlon'}

¶31

Learned^{counselfor the petitioner made submissionson} the lines^{of writ afhdavit'}

¶32

Sri A.^{Veeresh Kumar'learned Standing Counsel for} Respondent^{No' 2, submits that Late K' Narsimhapassed away} on 31.0^{1.2010' As on the date of the pensioner'sdeath'no one} in the^{familywas eligible for the sanction of a lhmily pension'} as the^{pensioner's wit-e had predeceasedhim' and the petitioner'} now claiming^{the tamily pension' was also not etigible' He} contends^{that the petitioner'smarriage had not been annulled as} on the^{date of her f-ather'sdeath' According to the Telangana} RevisedPensionRules,lg80,onlyawidowordivorced daughter^{is eligible for a familypension if she becamea widow} or divorced^{as on the date of the pensioner's death andwas}

¶33

¶34

¶35

wholly dependent on the pensioner during his rifetime. In this case, the petitioner's father passed away on 3l.Ol.2Ol0, while the petitioner obtained a divorce on22.I2.2Oll,i.e., nearly two years after her father,s death. As such, no one was eligible for the sanction of a famiry pension on the date of the pensioner,s death. He further submits that since the petitioner obtained a divorce after a gap of two years from the date of her father,s death, she cannot claim a pension under Category_Il of G.O.Ms.No.3l5, Finance . (pension_I) Department, dated 07.10.2010.

¶36

Leamed counsel, in reply, submits that the petitioner has been living apart from her husband since 2005, as detaired in the divorce decree in O.p. No. 32 of 20ll passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Sangareddy (Family Court). The petitioner has bcen financially dependent on her father, the late K. Narsimha, untir his demise on 31.01.2010. Leamed counsel further submits that the assertion by Respondent Nos. I to 3 regarding a two_year gap following the death of the petitioner's father is factua,y incorrect. During the rifetime of her father, the petitioner, along with her children, had been residing at her parental home since 2005. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a divorce petition, which culminated in the decree being granted in 2011. Therefore, the petitioner qualifies for the family pension in accordance with the Telangana Revised pension Rules, 19g0, under

Category-ll,^{as stipulated in G'O'Ms'No'3 15' dated 07'10'2010'}

¶42

Upon^{carefulconsiderationof the submissionsmade by both} parties^{and the material placed on record'it may be noted that the} petitioner^{had filed O'P'No'32of 2011 stating that her marriage was} performed^{in the year 1996 and'due to marital discord' she had been} residing^{with her father since 2005and was financiallydependent on} him^{until her father'sdemise on 31'01'2010' While a decreeof} divorce^{was obtainedin 201 1' the petitioner's separation from her} husband^{in 2005 and dependency on her father during his lifetime and} obtaining^{divorce are a matterof record before the trial Court'}

¶43

Finance '7 Furthermore,^{Category-Il under GOMs'No'315'} (Pension-ll)^{DePartment'dated O7 .10.2010 stipulates as follows:}

¶44

Category-l:

¶45

,it '' Widow or^{widower,uPtothe date of death or} iemarriage^{whicheveris earlier'} ( i i ) 1,1,:',1'j il?It;; Ii$#l'l?'H""J':* :"'#J:Y) tt"ishe^{starts earningor till the age} Iii'it "'i"* z? V**,^{whicheveris the earliest'} "i (b) sons/daughters^{who are physically/T9tqlly} [lruf.O^{throughouttheir life subiect to the} conditions^{sPecified therein}

¶46

CategoryJl:

¶47

(i) Unmarried/widowed/divorced^{daughter, not} covered by Category-l above, upto the^dateof marriage/remarriage or till the date she starts earning or upto the date of death whichever is the earliest."

¶48

¶49

In the instant case, the petitioner was residing with her father, thereby living separately from her husband due to marital disputes. She obtained a formal decree of divorce after the demise of her father, and therefore she is covered under Category_ll of the G.O.Ms.No.3 15. In that view of the matter, the writ petition deserues to be allowed.

¶50

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, and the respondent_ authorities are directed to process and sanction the family pension to the petitioner within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending ifany, shall stand closed.

¶51

SD/.S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶52

//TRUE COPY//

¶53

seckorrrcen

¶54

To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance (pension-l), T.S.,Hyderabad. 2. The I/anagr.rlg^Dlte.qlor, Hyde.rqQa! I\rletropolitan Water Su[pty and-Sewerage Board (HMWSSB) Khairtabad, Hyderabad.

¶55

The General lvlanager (EnSS ), Hyderabad [Vletropolitan Water Suoolv and 9ewerage^{Board(HMWSSB), Operationand Maint -Division Nd..lll,} Navodaya Colony -Guddimalkapur, Hyd. -28 4. One CC to SRl. RAJASHEKAR THALLAPALLY, Advocate tOpUCl 5. One CC to SRI. A. VEERESH KUIMAR, STANDTNG COUNSEL IOPUCI 6. Two CCs to GP FOR FTNANCE^pLANNtNc ,High Court foi the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies BI/ c GJP

¶56

I I

¶57

HIGH^COURT

¶58

DATED^{:1 7 10312025}

¶59

-iE S 4 7 .'
/:,'; (
1)J
$2 sEF 2$6
,+ *
oA.SPAT :_t1LO

¶60

ORDER

¶61

WP.No.30789^{of 2018}

¶62

ALLOWING^{THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS}

K. Lalitha, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Lalitha, v. The State of Telangana

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

P. Buchi Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary

E. Raju Vs Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Ltd.

Brij Gopal Heda Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. B. Savithri Bai, Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. Pulimamidi Saritha Reddy, Vs The Osmania University

Dr. Y. Anand Reddy Vs Prl. Secy., Animal Husbandry and Ano.