Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/26855/2025 of E JASMINE Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 1 February 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 26855/2025 Between: 1. E JASMINE, D/O LATE JUJJUVARAPU CHARLES AGE 57 YEARS, R/O D NO 9-228
APHC010502802025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3208]
MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 26855/2025
Between:
1. E JASMINE, D/O LATE JUJJUVARAPU CHARLES AGE 57 YEARS, R/O
D
NO
9-228
RAMNAGAR
GANNAVARAM,
KRISHNA
DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY
TO
GOVERNMENT
FINANCE
(PENSION
I)
DEPARTMENT AP SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI
GUNTUR DISTRICT
2. THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES AND ACCOUNTS, DOOR NO 7- 57, SRI ANJANEYA TOWERS, BHIMARAJU GUTTA, VTPS ROAD, IBRAHIMPATNAM-521456
3. THE DIRECTOR OF STATE AUDIT, O/O DIRECTOR, STATE
AUDIT, A.P., NIDHI BHAVAN, 2ND FLOOR, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PIN-522503
4. THE DISTRICT AUDIT OFFICER, O/O DIST AUDIT OFFICER, SOMALEELA
COMPLEX,
1ST
AND
2RD
FLOOR,
MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT
5. THE
DISTRICT
TREASURY
OFFICER,
54VX-GHM,
CHILAKALAPUDI, MACHILIPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH
521002
6. THE SUB TREASURY OFFICE, 0/O.SUB TREASURY OFFICE
GANNAVARAM KRISHNA DISTRICT.
7. THE HEAD MISTRESS, ZILLA PARISHAN HIGH SCHOOL
TELAPROLU.UNGUTURU MANDAL KRISHNA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 Writ of Mandamus, declaring the clarification issued by the Government in Memo No.FIN02- 14060/77/2023-C dt.SEC- DTA(C.No.2241473) Treasury and Accounts Dept for providing clarification to 4(E)(i) of G.O.Ms.No.315 Finance (Pension.I) Dept dt.7.10.2010 as illegal, arbitrary and violates Article 21 and 300(A) of Constitution of India and consequentially declare that the Petitioner is entitled for family pension as a dependent divorced daughter of her late father based on the proceedings already initiated by the respective authorities declaring the orders passed by the with all consequential attendant benefits in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to issue interim direction directing the respondents for granting family pension as divorced dependent daughter of her late father keeping in view of the G.O.Ms.No.315 Finance (Pension.I) Dept dt.7.10.2010 Sub Para 4(E)(i) ignoring Government Memo Hon’ble NO.FIN02-14060/77/2023-C dt.SEC-DTA(C.No.2241473) Treasury and Accounts Dept dt.30.10.2024 pending disposal of the Writ Petition and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to vacate the Interim Orders in I.A.No.1 of 2025
in W.P.No.26855 of 2025 dated 16.10.2025 and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P V RAMANA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
1. This Writ Petition is filed to declare the clarification issued by the Government in Memo No.FIN02-1406/77/2023-C, dt.SEC- DTA(C.No.2241473) Treasury and Accounts Department, providing clarification to 4(E)(i) of G.O.Ms.No.315 Finance (Pension.I) Dept, dated 07.10.2010.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. The petitioner is the daughter of the deceased employee. The father of the petitioner, while working as a Secondary Grade Teacher at Zilla Parishad High School, Telaprolu, Unguturu Mandal, died in the year 1990. Subsequently, the mother of the petitioner was granted family pension and received the same till her death on 10.12.2022. The petitioner, at the time of the death of her father in 1990, was unmarried, and accordingly, she filed an application for consideration of her case under Category–II-B. The petitioner got married in the year 1992, after the demise of her father, and the said marriage was dissolved under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, vide orders in O.P.No.67 of 2007, dated 29.06.2009. From that time, the petitioner was living with her mother as a dependent. After the demise of her mother, she became entitled to be considered for family pension under Category–II-B and made an application. Accordingly, the application was considered and family pension was sanctioned, and the same was sent to the District Treasury Office vide Lr.Rc.No.B7/2186/2024, dated 04.10.2024. Instead of paying/releasing family pension to the petitioner, the 6th respondent raised objections based on the discrepancy of the date and year in the decree as well as the Family Member Certificate furnished along with the application, issued by the then Tahsildar on 04.01.2023.
4. Though the petitioner has assailed the memo, the contention of the petitioner is that, according to the undisputed facts, the petitioner got married in the year 1992, after the demise of her father. Hence, she was dependent at the time of the demise of her father, and subsequently she got married in the year 1992, and the said marriage was dissolved in the year 2009, and she was also living with her mother as a dependent. Therefore, the decision of the respondents, more particularly the 6th respondent, in withholding the payment is not justified when the application was already considered and sanctioned by the competent authorities. Though there is a discrepancy in the decree, the petitioner placed reliance on the orders passed in O.P.No.67 of 2007, dated 29.06.2009, by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. The petitioner also placed reliance on the findings in M.C.No.16 of 2006 and G.W.O.P.No.391 of 2007, and in all the matters the Court has taken the date of marriage as 1992. Surprisingly, the 6th respondent, in his counter, has taken an objection with regard to the date mentioned in the decree as 1982, which is only a typographical mistake. The petitioner is not responsible for the same. In fact, O.P.No.67 of 2007 was filed by the husband of the petitioner, and on perusal of the entire decree, the date of marriage is noted as 22.08.1992. Further, the learned counsel has also placed reliance on the Family Member Certificate issued by the Revenue Department, dated 04.01.2023, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner is a divorced daughter. In view of the above two documents, the 6th respondent ought not to have withhold the family pension which was granted by the competent authorities.
5. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the Family Member Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Gannavaram, on 04.01.2023, shows the marital status of the petitioner as a divorced daughter, and as per O.P.No.67 of 2007 on the file of the Family Court-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, the first point in the decree mentions the date of marriage as 22.08.1992, and in view of the said decree, family pension could not be confirmed as further clarification was necessary. Meanwhile, the Government clarified the issue vide memo dated 10.03.2025. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to family pension.
6. Considering the above submissions of both the learned counsel and on perusal of the averments in the writ petition as well as in the counter, the question for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to family pension under Category–II–B as per G.O.Ms.No.315 of 2010, dated 07.10.2010. On verification of the decree in O.P.No.67 of 2007 and the common orders passed in O.P.No.67 of 2007, G.W.O.P.No.391 of 2007, and M.C.No.161 of 2006, it is clear that the marriage took place on 22.08.1992, and the discrepancy is only a typographical error in the decree. The respondent authorities cannot dispute the date of marriage in view of the Family Member Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Gannavaram. Though it earlier mentioned her as a married daughter, the Family Member Certificate dated 30.01.2025 clearly mentions that the petitioner is a divorced daughter.
7. On perusal of the said documents, it is confirmed that the date of marriage occurred after the demise of the father, and therefore the petitioner is entitled for family pension under Category–II-B, and also in view of the subsequent Family Member Certificate issued by the Revenue Department on 30.01.2025.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent authorities to consider the application and release pension which is already sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.
______________________________________ JUSTICE D RAMESH 02.02.2026 rmd
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 26855/2025
02s.02.2026 rmd