Pittala Ashok, v. The State Of Telangana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. BALAYOGI WRIT PETITION No. 15626 of 2017 ORDER: (Per VRS,J) The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging the grant of widow pension and family pension to the 5th respondent.

2.

Heard Mr. D. Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner. 3.

It is quite strange that the petitioner, who happens to be the son-in-law of the 5th respondent, has come up with a challenge to the grant of widow pension and family pension to the 5th respondent. The fact that the 5th respondent is a widow, is not disputed by the petitioner. The petitioner cannot also be a rival claimant either to the grant of widow pension or to the grant of family pension. Therefore, we do not know how the petitioner can maintain a challenge to the grant of widow pension to his mother-in-law, who is admittedly a widow. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed, both on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi, and also on merits. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the writ petition shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J ________________ N. BALAYOGI , J 1st June, 2017 cbs

VRS,J & NBY,J WP No.15626 of 2017 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN √ AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. BALAYOGI Writ Petition No.15626 of 2017 (dismissed) 1st June, 2017 cbs

VRS,J & NBY,J WP No.15626 of 2017