The Divisional Engineer, Electrical Operations, City-111 v. Mr. G. Seenaiah

[ 3387 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI WRIT APPEAL NO: 784 OF 2023 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred Against Order Dated 2710412022 inWP.No.8214 of 2OO4 on thefileof the High Court. Between:

The Divisional Engineer, ElectricaI operations, city-111, Central Power Distribution Company of A.P., Ltd, Salarjung S.S., Hyderabad - 500 002. .....APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS AND MR. G. Seenaiah, S/o. Late Sattaiah, aged 26 years, Occ ;Un-Employed, R|/o.1 3-4239/5, Subji ltilandi, Kamela Road, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/VVRIT PETITIONER |.A.NO:2 OF 2023 Petition under Seclion '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operations of the orders dated 271O412022 in WP. No. 8214 of 2003 pending the writ appeal.

Counsel for Appellant : SRI R.VINOD REDDY (SC FOR TSTRANSCO) Counsel for Respondents : SRI BALAJI MEDAMALLI The Court made the following Judgment :-

'..* ' 7 t, THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI .

AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI WRI APPEAL No.784 0F 2023 JUDGMENT: (Per AKS,I) This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 27.04.2022, passed in W.P.No.B2t4 of 2OO4 by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

2.

Heard Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TS TRANSCO, appearing for the appellant and Sri M. Bataji, learned counsel for the respondent.

3.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant had contended that father of the respondent is an employee of the appellant and he retired from service on 31.03.1996. The father of the respondent expired on t4.O4.7ggg leaving behind the respondent and other family members. The respondent has claimed family pension in terms of Rule 50 of the Revised pension Rules, 1980 (for short, 'the Rules') on the ground that he is aged about 21 years and he is entiUed to be paid family pension till he attains the age of.25 years. The appellant, having examined the case of the respondent, rejected the same vde proceedings, dated 29.06.2002, on the ground that he is already employed and therefore, he is not eligibll for family pension. Aggrieved by the

-'nt{- AKS,J & JAK,J W.A.No.784 of 2023 action of the appellant in not paying family pension, the respondent has approached this Court by filing the subject W.P.No.8214 of 2OO4 and a learned Single ludge of this Court, vide impugned erder, dated 27.04.2022, was pleased to direct the appellant to pay family pension to the respondent till he attains the age of 25 years, irrespective of whether the respondent is employed or not, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellant. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal by setting aside the impugned order and allow the Writ Appeal.

4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent had contended that Rule 50(5) of the Rules was amended vide G.O.Ms.No.289, dated t2.08.7994, whereby the earlier Rule, wherein it is stated that the sons are entitled to family pension till they attain the age of 25 years or starts earning his livelihood, was amended by deleting the words 'starts earning his livelihood'. Further, the amended Rule makes it clear that the sons would be entitled to family pension till they attain the age of 25 years, irrespective of whether they are employed or not and therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly directed the appellant to pay family pension to the respondent till he attains the age of 25 years. The learned Single Judge has directed the appellant to pay

.( AKS,J & JAK,J !./.A-No.784 of 2023 family pension to the respondent in view of the amendment made to Rule 50(5) of the Rules. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5.

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the subject Writ Petition in favour of the respondent, as Rule 50(5) of the Rules was amended vide G.O.Ms.No.289, dated 12.08.1.994, as per which, the respondent is entitled to be paid family pension till he attains the age of 25 years. Therefore, this Court ls not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, dated 27.04.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

6.

Accordlngly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.

SD/- K. SAILESHI DEPUTYSEGISTRAR lrn SECTION OFFICER To

1. One CC to Sri R.Vinod Reddy (SC FOR TSTRANSCO) (OPUC)

2. One CC to Sri Balaji Medamalli, Advocate [OPUC]

3. Two CD Copies SA GJP c*r //TRUE COPY//

HIGH COURT DATED:3010812023 /, /_ lii 18 SII ?fiB

JUDGMENT

WA.No.784 ot 2023 DISMISSING THE W.A WITHOUT COSTS.

"nhr