1

*HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

+WRIT PETITION No.560 of 2021

Between:

#Vilamandiparthi Vagdevi, ...PETITIONER

AND

$The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 28.03.2025

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgments?

- Yes -

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law

Reporters/Journals

- Yes -

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair

copy of the Judgment?

- Yes -

___________________________________

DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

2

* THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

+WRIT PETITION No.560 of 2021

% 28.03.2025

# Between:

#Vilamandiparthi Vagdevi, ...PETITIONER

AND

$The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri S. Sridhar

! Counsel for Respondents: GP for Services-II

GP for Services-IV

Sri G.Sai Narayana Rao

<Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

APHC010008002021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 560/2021

Between:

Vilamandiparthi Vagdevi,

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. S SRIDHAR

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES IV

2. G SAI NARAYANA RAO

3. GP FOR SERVICES II

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for

the following relief:

“…..to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of

Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos 3 and 4 in not releasing family pension

to the petitioner as arbitrary illegal contrary to the CCS Pension Rules 1972

3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 560/2021

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

GP FOR SERVICES IV

G SAI NARAYANA RAO

GP FOR SERVICES II

made the following:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for

issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of

Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos 3 and 4 in not releasing family pension

to the petitioner as arbitrary illegal contrary to the CCS Pension Rules 1972 and in violation of

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

[3310]

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

...PETITIONER

...RESPONDENT(S)

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for

issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of

Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos 3 and 4 in not releasing family pension

and in violation of

4

Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent Nos 3 and 4

herein to forthwith release family pension amount to the petitioner and pass……”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner was married to the

deceased husband on 14.05.1987 as per Hindu rites and customs and out of

the wedlock they borne two daughters and one son with date of births

29.08.1991, 27.08.1993 and 06.08.1995 respectively. The deceased husband

worked as work inspector in Panchayat Raj Department in PRI division of

Kothavalasa. . After the death of deceased husband on 28.08.2014, Petitioner

sent proposals dt.12.09.2014 to Respondents 3 and Respondent 4 for the

family pension and other death benefits and also for providing appointment to

her son under compassionate grounds. Thereafter, Petitioner was informed by

Respondent 4 vide Memo dt.21.12.2014 to get legal heir certificate from

Tahsildar Jami. Despite complaints made to the 2

nd

respondent-Revenue

Divisional Officer, Tahsildar failed to issue a legal heir certificate. Except the

funeral charges, Petitioner was not sanctioned any amounts by the

Respondents. Thereafter when Petitioner approached the Respondents for

release of family pension and other death benefits, Respondents cited a

representation received by V. Krishnamma, who is the 5th respondent herein

asserting as legally wedded wife of Petitioner’s deceased husband. The

Petitioner stated that the 5

th

respondent was having an illicit relationship with

the deceased husband of the Petitioner from which she tried to take

advantage by entering her name in the Service Records of the deceased

husband of the Petitioner. Having been denied by the Petitioner’s deceased

5

husband, the 5

th

Respondent has filed number of cases against the deceased

husband of the Petitioner including maintenance. It is further stated that the

5

th

Respondent has filed S.O.P.No.6/2016 before the Hon'ble Senior Civil

Judge at Vizianagaram against the Petitioner seeking succession certificate in

her favour to receive Gratuity, Group Insurance, contributory provident fund

and leave salary of the deceased husband of the Petitioner excluding family

pension and contends that it does not preclude Petitioner from receiving the

family pension of the deceased husband by Respondents No. 3 and 4.

3. The 5

th

Respondent has filed counter affidavit stating that she is the

legally wedded first wife of the deceased husband, with two children. After the

birth of her first son, deceased husband developed an illicit relationship with

the Petitioner and even had children with her. The 5

th

Respondent has stated

that during the lifetime of deceased, he executed a registered Will Deed dated

21.09.1993 bearing Doc. No.53/1993 wherein he categorically mentioned that

she is his first wife and the petitioner herein is his 2

nd

wife. Thereafter when

the deceased husband started neglecting her son, she filed case for

maintenance in M.C.No.8/1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1st

Class, S.Kota, and the same was allowed and the above mentioned Will Deed

dt.21.09.1993 was marked as Ex.P1. The M.C.No.8/1998 was allowed vide

orders dt.20.12.1999 and the Hon'ble Court also held that the 5

th

Respondent

as the first wife of the deceased husband and that the writ petitioner herein is

the second wife. However, the revision petition was later filed by the deceased

husband in CRL.R.P.No.12/1999 on the file of the Addl District & Sessions

6

Judge, Vizianagaram was dismissed vide Orders dt. 23.09.2000. Thereafter,

the 5

th

Respondent filed an application for enhancement of the maintenance

amount vide MP.No.3251/2005 in MC No.8/98 and the same was allowed by

the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class. S.Kota, and thereafter in the year

2011, the 5

th

Respondent once again filed an application for enhancement of

compensation vide CRL.M.P.No.952/2011 in MC.No.8/98 and the same was

settled before the Lok Adalat with the deceased husband agreeing to pay an

enhanced amount of maintenance. It is further stated that after the death of

the deceased husband, 5

th

Respondent and her son filed S.O.P.No. 6 of 2016

on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Vizianagaram, for grant of

Succession Certificate in their favor for the "Death Benefits" of the deceased

husband that includes family pension and for the compassionate appointment

for her son. The said S.O.P.No.6 of 2016 is at the stage of trial and is coming

up for the cross examination of PW1. It is further stated by the

5

th

Respondent that the filing of the instant writ petition by the Petitioner is

nothing but an abuse of the process of law in an attempt to pre-empt the

judgment/order of the competent civil court in S.O.P.No. 6 of 2016 and

therefore is the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed

with costs.

4. Heard Sri S. Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

and leaned Government leader for Services-II; learned Government Pleader

for Services-IV and Sri Sai Narayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the

5

th

respondent.

7

5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the

contents made in the petition, submits that, even as per sec. 11 of Hindu

Marriage Act, any marriage shall be treated as null and void if the party to the

marriage has a living spouse. Further as per the pension rules and

department circulars, a second widow will not have any claim for family

pension as second marriage is null and void and she is not holding the status

of legally wedded wife. Hence the action of the respondents in withholding the

pension on the ground of representation received from 5th respondent is

legally untenable. Learned counsel further submits that the family pension

scheme is in the nature of welfare scheme framed to provide reliefs to the

widow and children of the deceased employee and the employee has no

control over the family pension as he is not required to make any contribution

to it. Hence the action of respondents in not releasing the pension amounts to

in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has

relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Deoki Nandan

Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and others has held that:

"The payment of pension does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but

is governed by the relevant Rules and anyone entitled to the pension under the Rules

can claim it as a matter of right."

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the decision,

submits that, even in the Service Record, the petitioner’s name was entered

as claimant for all his benefits and thus as per CCS pension rules no other

8

person except those designated under the rules is entitled to receive the

family pension. In fact, no succession certificate under Indian Succession Act,

1952 is required for getting family pension. The family pension is neither debt

nor a security of the deceased employee or pensioner for which succession

certificate can be applied u/s.372 of Indian Succession Act, 1952. He further

submits that the 5th respondent has filed S.O.P.No.6/2016 before the Hon'ble

Senior Civil Judge at Vizianagaram against the petitioner herein seeking

succession certificate in her favour to receive Gratuity, Group Insurance,

Contributory Provident Fund and leave salary of deceased husband excluding

family pension. In view of the same there is no bar on the respondent Nos.3

and 4 herein to release family pension to the petitioner herein. He further

submits that, in spite of submitting claim form under Form No.13 way back in

2014, the action of the respondents in not providing family pension to the

petitioner on the ground of receiving a representation from 5th respondent is

illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 and hence

requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

8. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for the official

respondents opposed for allowing the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the

same.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 5

th

respondent

while denying the contents made by the petition, reiterated the contents made

in the counter affidavit. He submits that the S.O.P. filed by the 5

th

respondent

is pending before the competent civil court and came up for cross

9

examination. He submits that when the litigation pending before the civil

court, the petitioner herein filed the present writ petition is nothing but an

abuse of process of law and therefore the writ petition is not maintainable and

is liable to be dismissed.

10. Perused the material on record.

11. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner herein is the

legally wedded wife of late V.Sitram Murthy and their marriage was performed

on 14.5.1987 and they were blessed with two daughters and one son. It is

further contention of the petitioner that, after demise of deceased husband of

the petitioner, she made proposals for pensions and other death benefits and

also for providing appointment to her son under compassionate grounds to the

respondents. Thereafter the 4

th

respondent vide his Memo dated 21.12.2014

informed the petitioner that to get legal heir certificate from Tahsildar, Jami

concerned. Though she made several representations, but the 2

nd

respondent

has not issued certificate till now.

12. Moreover it is the contention of the 5

th

respondent counsel that the

5

th

respondent is the legally wedded wife of V.Seetharamamurthy of Jami

village and she was blessed with two children and one of them died. Further,

she filed Maintenance case and the same was allowed. It is also contended

that, after demise of deceased husband, her son filed SOP No.6 of 2016 on

the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Vizianagaram for grant of succession

10

certificate, in their favour, for the death benefits of her late deceased husband

V. Seetharamamurthy.

13. On considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and

on perusing the entire material on record, this Court is of the view that, the

SOP No.6 of 2016 is at the stage of trial and has come up for the cross

examination of PW,1 and further it appears that the present writ petition filed

by the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of law in an attempt to

pre-empt the judgment/order of the competent Civil Court in the said SOP.

14. Since as per Civil Service (Conduct) Rules 1964 issued in

G.O.Ms.No.168/GA(Ser-A) Department dated 5.3.1990 under Rule 25 “that

no Government employee who has a wife living shall contract another

marriage without first obtaining permission of the government notwithstanding

that such subsequent marriage is permissible under the personal law for the

time being applicable to him.”

15. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on

considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court is of the

view that, as the SOP is pending before the competent Civil Court for grant of

Succession Certificate the petitioner has to take steps for obtaining the said

certificate before the competent respondents but with regard to release of

death benefits etc., are not possible at this stage. Therefore finding no merit

in the instant writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

11

16. Accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is left open

to the petitioner to take steps for obtaining succession certificate before the

competent Civil Court.

17. There shall be no order as to costs.

18. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall

stand closed.

_________________________

DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

Date : -03-2025

Gvl

12

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITON No.560/2021

Date : 28.03.2025

Gvl