Telangana High Court
M. Balamani, Rr Dist vs Executive Engineer, Housing, ... on 20 June, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No.7616 of 2017
ORDER:
The case of the petitioner is that her husband i.e., Late
M.Chinnaiah, was employed as Class IV under the
administrative control of the 1st respondent, initially on a
daily wage basis from February 1983. Subsequently, he
worked as an NMR (Nominal Muster Roll) worker from
17.06.1984 until his services were regularized as a Watchman
under the work-charged establishment, vide proceedings
dated 30.12.1989. While in service, the petitioner's husband
was murdered by two individuals and the accused were later
convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the V
Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, vide judgment
dated 14.10.2004 in Sessions Case No. 192 of 2000.
Following his death, the petitioner submitted pension papers
seeking family pension. However, the 1st respondent vide
memo dated 03.02.2001, returned the application, stating
that the petitioner's husband had not completed 10 years of
qualifying service as required under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated
29.03.1979. This conclusion was based solely on his
regularized service beginning from 30.12.1989, without
NBK,J
W.P.No.7616_2017
considering his prior service from February 1983. The
petitioner contends that if the total service rendered by her
husband from 1983 is taken into account including his daily
wage and NMR service, he would have completed over 15
years of service. Despite several representations requesting
reconsideration of her claim for family pension, no action has
been taken by the respondents to date. Hence, this Writ
Petition.
2. Heard Sri Kusuri Satyanarayana, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Sri A.K.Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel
for respondent Nos.1 and 3. Perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, making
submissions on the lines of writ affidavit had filed a memo
dated 12.06.2025, relying upon the Judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.25260 of
2002, W.P.No.8201 of 2016 and W.P.No.9438 of 2020; and
also the Order of this Court in W.P.No.33916 of 2017; and
submits that the subject matter of the present writ petition is
covered by the said Orders, and therefore similar orders may
be passed in the present writ petition also. The operative
NBK,J
W.P.No.7616_2017
portion of the order dated 02.02.2022 in W.P.No.9438 of 2020
reads as under:
"Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed and the
respondents are directed to take into account the
service rendered by the husband of the petitioner with
effect from 01.08.1998 to 05.12.2009 for the purposes
of qualifying service, pension as well as other terminal
dues. The exercise of passing necessary orders or
granting the terminal dues/pension/arrears of pension
be concluded within a period of four months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 filed a counter
affidavit stating that petitioner's husband had rendered 9
years 5 months and 9 days of service as a Watchman under
the work-charged establishment. As per G.O.Ms.No.212,
dated 29.03.1979, all work-charged employees, who have
completed 10 years of total service, are eligible for benefits
such as leave, pension, etc.
5. He further stated that since petitioner's husband did
not complete 10 years of service, he was not eligible for family
pension. Consequently, the family pension papers submitted
by petitioner were returned on 03.02.2001. It is also stated
that there is no provision in the rules to grant an exemption
for those with less than 10 years of service in order to extend
pensionary benefits. Therefore, it is contended that
NBK,J
W.P.No.7616_2017
petitioner's claim for family pension is without merit and is
liable to be dismissed.
6. It may be noted that the order appointing petitioner's
husband on temporary basis is certainly not in dispute and
therefore, once he served on temporary basis from February,
1983 to 30.12.1989, the said period has to be taken into
consideration for purposes of pension and other retiremental
dues, in the light of the judgment delivered in identical case
by the Division Bench of the unified High Court for the State
of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.8201 of 2016.
7. Considering the submissions made by both the learned
counsel and in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.9438 of 2020, this
Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondents to take into
account the service rendered by the husband of the petitioner
with effect from February, 1983 to 30.12.1989 for the
purposes of qualifying service, pension as well as other
terminal dues and pass appropriate orders in accordance with
law within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.
NBK,J
W.P.No.7616_2017
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand accordingly
closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
Dated: 20.06.2025
dgr
