Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/33660/2011 of S.RATNAMMA, CHITTOOR DISTRICT Vs THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, BORDER SECURITY FORCE, & 5 OTHERS on 31 December 2024
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY , THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 33660/2011 Between: S.Ratnamma, Chittoor District and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATI [3457](Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 33660/2011
Between:
...PETITIONER(S)
S.Ratnamma, Chittoor District and Others
AND
...RESPONDENT(S)
The Director General Border Security Force 5 Others and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.VENUGOPAL REDDY GODDINDLA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.M SRIKANTH REDDY
2.DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
3.V SUDHAKAR REDDY
The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
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.
O R D E R :
WRIT PETITION No.33660 of 2011
The petitioner is challenging the in-action of the respondents in conducting an enquiry and recovering the financial assistance and pension benefits paid to the 6[th] respondent inspite of representations of the petitioner dated 30.07.2010 and 21.07.2011. It is alleged that the 6[th] respondent had played fraud on respodnents 1 to 3 and claimed the service benefits of the petitioner’s deceased son.
2. The petitioner is the mother of S.Madhu, who worked as a Constable under the respondents 1 to 3 from the year 1993 to July, 2000 and the petitioner’s son died on 25.05.2000 while he was on leave due to brain stroke. The 6[th] respondent was married to the petitioner’s son on 10.02.2000.
3. It is submitted that the 6[th] respondent left the marital home after one week of the death of the petitioner’s son and remarried. It is submitted that the 6[th] respondent claimed the death benefits by claiming herself as the sole beneficiary of the petitioner’s son’s service benefits. The petitioner submitted representations dated 30.07.2010 and 21.07.2011 requesting the respondents 1 to 3 to conduct a proper enquiry and decide who would be the actual WP.No.33660 of 2011
beneficiary of the service benefits of the petitioner’s deceased son.
4. It was also brought to the notice of the respondents 1 to 3 that the petitioner was suffering on account of age-related issues and had no source of income and was completely dependent on her deceased son. It is submitted that the petitioner is the first-class legal heir and the petitioner ought to have been paid the service and death benefits of her deceased son. petitioner was suffering on account of age-related issues and had no source of income and was completely dependent on her deceased son. It is submitted that the petitioner is the first-class legal heir and the petitioner ought to have been paid the service and death benefits of her deceased son.
5. The respondents in their counter submit that the petitioner’s son joined Boarder Security Force on 15.12.1993. It is also submitted that he was in a casual leave for ten days on the ground that his wife was serious. It is submitted that the respondents 1 to 3 received a communication that the petitioner’s son expired on 25.05.2000 due to brain haemorrhage. It is also submitted that a representative from the Unit was sent to his Home Town for preparation of Family Pension papers. On the basis of the Family Pension papers submitted the family pension and other financial assistance was paid to the 6[th] respondent in the year 2000 itself. It is submitted that the petitioner after ten years addressed a letter alleging illegal drawing of pension. The issue was taken up by the concerned officers and it was found that the disbursal of pension in favour of 6[th] respondent was in accordance with the prevailing joined Boarder Security Force on 15.12.1993. It is also submitted that he was in a casual leave for ten days on the ground that his wife was serious. It is submitted that the respondents 1 to 3 received a communication that the petitioner’s son expired on 25.05.2000 due to brain haemorrhage. It is also submitted that a representative from the Unit was sent to his Home Town for preparation of Family Pension papers. On the basis of the Family Pension papers submitted the family pension and other financial assistance was paid to the 6[th] respondent in the year 2000 itself. It is submitted that the petitioner after ten years addressed a letter alleging illegal drawing of pension. The issue was taken up by the concerned officers and it was found that the disbursal of pension in favour of 6[th] respondent was in accordance with the prevailing WP.No.33660 of 2011
pension rules and the office memorandums which were prevailing at that point of time. It is submitted in the counter that even after re-marriage the 6[th] respondent was entitled to draw pension as per the DOP & PWOM No.38/37/08-P&PW(A), dated 02.09.2008 and OM.No.1/4/2011-P&PW(E), dated 01.04.2011. It is also submitted that the deceased constable had also submitted a nomination form naming the 6[th] respondent as his nominee. It is submitted that no infirmity can be pointed out to the acts of the respondents 1 to 3 in grant of pension to the nominee.
6. During pendency of the writ petition the petitioner also passed away and legal heirs are brought on record. The legal heirs of the petitioner at any rate cannot step into the shoes of the petitioner and claim as first-class legal heirs when the 6[th] respondent is drawing the family pension of the deceased employee.
7. On account of the death of the petitioner, no further orders would be required in the present writ petition on merits. At any rate, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with grant of family pension and other financial benefits to the 6[th] respondent which is evidently based on the nomination of the 6th respondent as entitled for service benefits by the deceased constable. The disbursement of family pension papers is based on the Family Pension papers submitted after the death of deceased employee.
There was no occasion for the petitioner to dispute the sanction of pension and other benefits to the 6[th] respondent after a gap of ten years.
8. In these circumstances, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the sanction of pension or payment of financial benefits to the nominee of the deceased employee and more so when the respondents have acted in accordance with the applicable and with the sanction of pension or payment of financial benefits to the nominee of the deceased employee and more so when the respondents have acted in accordance with the applicable and operative Office Memorandums in that regard.
9. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed without costs. costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.
____________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
KGM
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
WRIT PETITION No.33660 of 2011
Dated 31.12.2024