1. The instant Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners questioning the impugned letter No.PAG(A&E)/P19A/S-172/FP48/2022-09/2970 dated 26.09.2025 issued by the respondent No.3-Accountant General releasing the retiral benefits and family pension of the deceased employee i.e., Late Syed Wajeed Hussain in favour of the respondent No.7 alone, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Sri C. Raja Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 6 and 10, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the respondent Nos.3 to 5 and Sri Shaik Anwar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.7 to 9. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 is the first wife of the decease employee, Late Syed Wajeed Hussain, having married him on 08.05.1988 and the petitioner No.2 is their son. The deceased employee died in harness on 23.06.2021 while working as a Superintendent in the Office of the District Education Officer, Mulugu District. The deceased employee, along with his family members, forcibly obtained a divorce certificate from the Muslim Personal Law Board, Khammam District, on 25.09.1994 and subsequently married the respondent No.7 in the year 1995.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that after the death of the deceased employee, an agreement was entered into between the families on 30.10.2021 and the petitioners submitted several representations to the authorities for release of pensionary benefits and compassionate appointment. Subsequently, the respondent No.7 had filed W.P.No.39997 of 2022 and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 02.04.2025, directing the authorities to pass orders on the representations of the petitioners therein. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 passed the impugned order dated 26.09.2025 releasing the entire pensionary benefits to the respondent No.7 alone, without considering the case of the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that under Rule 50 of the Telangana Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for brevity, “Rules, 1980”), where family pension is payable to more than one widow, it shall be paid in equal shares. Also, under Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 8 of the Telangana Government Servants (Family Pension) Rules, 1964 (for brevity, “Rules, 1964”), as amended, the children of a divorced wife are entitled to a share of the family pension. Therefore, the petitioner No.1 is entitled to a half share of the pension and the petitioner No.2 is entitled to compassionate appointment being the son of the first wife.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the divorce was obtained with the force of the family members and the deceased continued to maintain the petitioners, paying their school and college fees and providing financial support. The petitioner No.2 is working only as a teacher in a small private school and his wife is a housewife. As per G.O.Ms.No.278, Finance and Planning Department, dated 19.10.1987, family pension is not admissible to a second wife and therefore, the petitioner No.1 is entitled to the pensionary benefits. In view of the same, learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court to allow the Writ Petition by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners by releasing half share of the retiral benefits to the petitioner No.1 and to issue appointment orders under compassionate grounds to the petitioner No.2.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.7 to 9, basing on the counter affidavit, submits that the petitioner No.1 voluntarily obtained a ‘Khula’ (divorce) on 25.09.1994 and consequently ceased to be the wife of the deceased. The service records of the deceased were updated to reflect the name of the respondent No.7 as the lawful wife and nominee. Further, the petitioner No.2 has been employed as a teacher in a reputed school and has been living independently with his family for the last more than 10 years and was not dependent upon the deceased employee at the time of his death. The legal heir certificate was issued by the Tahsildar, Khammam, in favour of the respondent Nos.7 to 9, the petitioner No.2 and his brother, excluding the petitioner No.1, and a share of the GPF was already distributed to them. In view of the same, the respondent No.7 is entitled to the entire family pension and the petitioner No.2 is not entitled to compassionate appointment as he is age-barred and not a dependent and requested to dismiss the Writ Petition.

8. After hearing both sides and on a perusal of the entire material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are the first wife and elder son of the deceased employee, Late Syed Wajeed Hussain, who died in harness on 26.06.2021 while working as Superintendent in the office of the District Education Officer, Mulugu District. The respondent Nos.7 to 9 are the second wife and children of the deceased employee and the instant case is filed for sharing of the retiral benefits and family pension and providing of compassionate appointment to the petitioner No.2.

9. The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioner No.1 was divorced on 25.09.1994 under Muslin Personal Law on the force of the family members and a divorce certificate was issued by the Muslim Personal Law Board, Khammam District and the petitioner No.1 was forced out of the house of the deceased employee with the help of his second wife. The documents filed by both sides reveal that there is no dispute with regard to the divorce obtained by the petitioner No.1 from her husband on 25.09.1994. Subsequently, there is no record to show that the petitioner No.1 had agitated with regard to the alleged forced divorce at that time. After nearly 30 years, the petitioners are now contending that the divorce was obtained by the deceased employee by force. In fact, the deceased employee had submitted relevant documents to change the name of petitioner No.1 and to delete her name as nominee in his service records and he also made declarations by listing the names of respondent Nos.7 to 9 and also the petitioner No.2 and his younger brother as family members.

10. Once the marriage of the petitioner No.1 and the deceased employee was dissolved and reflected in his service records, the question of entitlement of the petitioner No.1 to family pension does not arise. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner No.1 obtained divorce on 25.09.1994 and the name of the respondent No.7 was recorded as the wife of the deceased employee in all his service records. The respondent authorities rightly sanctioned family pension to the respondent No.7. In view of the same, the petitioner No.1 is not entitled to 50% of the family pension and the impugned proceedings of the respondent No.3 needs no interference by this Court and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

11. With regard to the entitlement of retiral benefits and the compassionate appointment, the petitioner No.2 is eligible along with the respondent Nos.7 to 9 and his younger brother. Before filing of this Writ Petition, the petitioner No.2 received his share of the GPF amount and if any amount is due, he is entitled to receive his share along with the respondent Nos.7 to 9 and his younger brother.

12. The petitioner No.2 made an application dated 18.07.2022 for compassionate appointment and the said application was filed at page No.33 of the material papers of the writ affidavit. It clearly shows that the petitioner No.2 made the said application after the lapse of one (1) year from the date of death of his father and as per G.O.Ms.No.687, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 03.10.1977, an application for compassionate appointment has to be made within one (1) year from the date of death of the deceased employee. The respondent Nos.7 to 9, being the legal heirs of the deceased employee, made an application for compassionate appointment to the respondent No.8 within one year and the same is pending before the respondent authorities and was not finalized due to rival claims of the petitioners and the unofficial respondents.

13. Further, the respondent Nos.7 to 9 filed W.P.No.39997 of 2022 seeking release of family pension, death benefits and other retiral benefits including compassionate appointment to the respondent No.8. The petitioner No.2 and his brother were made as respondents in the said Writ Petition and they appeared through their counsel. The said Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dated 02.04.2025, directing the respondent authorities to consider the pending applications of the respondent Nos.7 to 9 herein by giving opportunity to the petitioner No.2 herein and his brother. Thereafter, after conducting enquiry, the respondent authorities have released the family pension in favour of the respondent No.7 and kept the application for compassionate appointment pending. On a perusal of the representation filed by the petitioner No.2 at page Nos.28, 29 and 31 of the material papers of the writ affidavit, it clearly shows that the petitioner No.2 requested the District Educational Officer not to release any retiral benefits to the respondent Nos.7 to 9 without informing or obtaining NOC from them. However, there is no mention with regard to the request for compassionate appointment until 18.07.2022.

14. This Court cannot adjudicate the validity of the agreement between the parties as filed in the material papers annexed to the writ petition and this Court is concerned only with the entitlement to family pension under Rule 50 of the Rules, 1980.

15. There are no valid grounds for interference of this Court with the impugned letter dated 26.09.2025 issued by the respondent No.3 and the respondent authorities have to release the family pension to the respondent No.7 and the compassionate appointment can be considered basing on the applications made by the eligible children as per G.O.Ms.No.687, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 03.10.1977.

16. With the above findings, this Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.

17. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. There shall be no orders as to costs.