ORDER
Goda Raghuram, J.
1. The petitioner is the son of one Shaik Masthan Bi who died on 27-5-1998. Shaik Masthan Bi was appointed as Conductress in P.S. Elementary School. Gundlapalli, Nakarikallu Mandal, Guntur District on 12-7-1974 and continued in service till her superannuation i.e., till 30-6-1994, on reaching the age of 60 years. The 5th respondent herein submitted pension proposals to the Director of Local Fund, Hyderabad-3rd respondent for certifying her pensionery benefits, on 8-5-1995. The 3rd respondent returned the proposals along with Service Registers to the 5th respondent by the letter dt.21-8-1995 stating that as per G.O.Ms. No. 708 (Education) Department dt.28-5-1983 only those conductresses/ conductors whose appointment was prior to 18-1-1974 are eligible for pension and that the petitioner’s mother was not eligible, as she was appointed on 12-7-1974, in the absence of any specific orders of the ‘ Government. The petitioner urges that his mother’s services were converted into last grade service with effect from 1-4-1981 as per the provisions of G.O.Ms. No. 156 (Finance and Planning) Department dated 20-4-1983. The order clearly directs that pre-absorption service of full time contingent employees who were absorbed in Government service against the posts of full time contingent employees converted into last grade service (like the case of petitioner’s mother), be counted for the purpose of pension in combination with the subsequent regular service.
2. Thereafter, the 6th respondent by his letter dt.5-10-1995 re-submitted proposals for pension to the petitioner’s mother to the 1st respondent through the 2nd respondent recommending that the petitioner’s mother is entitled to the benefits under G.O.Ms. No. 156 dt.20-4-1983. By another letter dated 12-12-1995, the 5th respondent is stated to have sent up a detailed letter to the 1st respondent routed through the 2nd respondent, forwarding the service registers of the petitioner’s mother, requesting consideration of her case and for issuance of ratification orders for grant of pensionery benefits to the petitioner’s mother with effect from 1-7-1994 duly taking into account the contingent service put in by her from 12-7-1974 to 31-3-1994 (sic. 31-3-1981) in combination with the subsequent regular service put up by her from 1-4-1981 to 30-6-1994 as per the order in G.O.Ms. No. 156 dt.20-4-1983, as a special case.
3. During her lifetime, the petitioner’s mother pursued her claim for pension but her case was floundering in the labyrinths of the Secretariat and other offices. Eventually, she left her earthly abode on 27-5-1998. After his mother’s death, the petitioner continued to pursue his mother’s entitlement to pension. According to the petitioner, some times he was informed that there were no funds with the District Parishad Gratuity Fund Office and at other times, that the papers are under process.
4. By proceedings dt.23-3-1999, the 4th respondent ordered grant of pension and other benefits to the petitioner’s mother granting retirement pension at the rate of Rs. 598/- p.m. and Rs. 20,068/- towards gratuity and directing these amounts to be paid to the petitioner as the sole legal heir. Thereafter, in another proceeding dated 12-4-1999 addressed by the 4th respondent to the 5th respondent a copy of which was marked to the petitioner, it was slated that as some file relating to the appointment of the petitioner’s mother is pending disposal with the 2nd respondent and without noticing the said fact, the 4th respondent had passed orders dt.23-9-1999 sanctioning pension and other benefits to the petitioner’s mother, the earlier benefits granted in the 4th respondent’s proceeding dt.23-9-1999 are cancelled. Having lost even the flickering hope of getting his mother’s pension during his lifetime, the petitioner is before this Court seeking appropriate relief.
5. One of the grounds urged by the 1st respondent to resist this writ petition is regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. It is contended that the petitioner has filed this writ petition directly before this Court without approaching the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and therefore the writ petition is not maintainable. It requires to be noticed that the petitioner is not an employee of the State Government. He is not claiming any pensionery dues on his own account. His claim is as the sole legal heir of a former employee of the State and he is seeking pensionery benefits due to his late mother. On the admitted factual scenario, the petitioner’s mother, a former employee of the State died on 27-5-1998 and was therefore not in a position to sue in her own name before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. The respondents are at a loss to demonstrate before this Court the legal position under which the petitioner is entitled to institute any application for relief before the A.P.A.T. under any extant provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’). The provisions of the Act, in particular Sections 14 and 19 r/w Rules 4 and 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 permit the irresistible inference that it is only an aggrieved employee who can seek redress before the A.P.A.T. The contention on behalf of the respondents as to the maintainability of this writ petition is therefore seen to be misconceived and is accordingly rejected.
6. The essential facts are that the petitioner’s mother was appointed as Conductress on 12-7-1974 at the P.S. Elementary School, Gundlapalli, served there continuously since then and retired on superannuation on 30-6-1994 after a service of nearly 20 years. In proceedings in Rc. No. 127/87.E1 dt.9-1-1987, the Block Development Officer, P.S. Rajupalem on a consideration of the application of the petitioner’s mother dt.8-1-1987 declared her regularization in service and satisfactory completion of the period of probation. This proceeding notes that the petitioner’s mother was regularized in service with effect from 1-4-1981 and has satisfactorily completed the period of probation on 31-3-1983.
7. There is nothing stated either expressly or by any necessary implication in the counter affidavits of the respondents 1 and 5 that the Conductresses/Conductors whose services were regularized pursuant to the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 708 dt.28-5-1983 are not entitled to pensionery benefits. In fact, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent does concede that persons whose services have been regularized under G.O.Ms. No. 708 dt.28-5-1983 are entitled to pensionery benefits. What is pleaded in the counter-affidavit and contended on behalf of the respondents, however, is that notwithstanding the regularization of the service of the petitioner with effect from 1-4-1981, such regularization is contrary to the orders in G.O.Ms. No. 708 dt.28-5-1983. The contention in this regard is that in G.O.Ms.No. 708 the school conductresses/ conductors under Panchayat Raj bodies who were appointed prior to 18-1-1974 and are continuing on full time basis for a period of five years as on 1-4-1981 would be allowed the concession extended to the contingent employees in earlier Government Orders cited in G.O.Ms. No. 708 dt.28-5-1983. The 1st respondent contends that as the petitioner’s mother commenced her service on 12-7-1974, she could not be considered as having been appointed prior to 18-1-1974 and was therefore not entitled to the benefits of G.O.Ms. No. 708 dt.28-5-1983.
8. The fact remains that the Block Development Officer, Rajupalem had issued Proceedings dt.9-1-1987 regularizing the services of the petitioner’s mother with effect from 1-4-1981 and had also declared her satisfactory completion of probation with effect from 31-3-1983. The counter-affidavit is silent on the aspect as to whether the above order dt.9-1-1987 regularizing the services of the petitioner’s mother with effect from 1-4-1981 was ever cancelled. In the circumstances, it must be construed that the regularization of the service of the petitioner’s mother with effect from 1-4-1981 was not disturbed either during her life time upto 27-5-1998 or even thereafter. No such cancellation can be done now as the petitioner’s mother is beyond the processes of a human agency. The regularization of the service of the petitioner’s mother has thus attained finality. It is conceded that a regular contingent employee who has put in 20 years of service is entitled to pensionery benefits apropos the orders in G.O.Ms. No. 708 dt.28-5-1983. On the above analysis, it is reasonable to conclude that the hyper-technical contention in the counter-affidavit of the respondents that the regularization of the service of the petitioner’s mother with effect from 1-4-1981 being contrary to the orders in G.O.Ms. No. 708 dt.28-5-1983, she is also not entitled to pensionery benefits need to be characterized as nitpicking. It does not constitute a fair and reasonable treatment and the counter-affidavit is silent as to any administrative action initiated against any officer who had regularized the services of the petitioner’s mother with effect from 1-4-1981.
9. At any rate, all the orders qualifying the service and the conditionalities subject to which persons who have put in contingent service are entitled to be treated as regular servants, conditionalities relatable to eligible service for grant of pension, etc., are all the product of administrative instruments. No legislation or an instrument having statutory under-pinning is involved. Such instruments are amenable to administrative construction and susceptible to a broader spectrum of discretion than the relatively inflexible commands of a legislative instruments. It would have been in the fitness of things that the 1st respondent ought to have in the plenitude of its administrative discretion taken a holistic view of the service antecedents of the petitioner’s mother, the administrative orders including that of the Block Development Officer, Rajupalem and other orders regularizing the services of the petitioner’s mother and exercised discretion to grant regularization and to direct release of the pensionery benefits.
10. On the facts and circumstances and the analysis above, I consider it appropriate to direct the respondents to treat the petitioner’s mother as eligible for pensionery benefits in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 708 dated 28-5-1983 r/w G.O.Ms. No. 156 dt.28-4-1983. The petitioner claims to be the sole legal heir to the terminal benefits due and payable to his late mother. If that be so, the petitioner shall be entitled to all the terminal benefits due and payable to Shaik Masthan Bi with effect from the date of her superannuation i.e., 30-6-1994. The benefits shall be computed, sanctioned and paid to the legal heir of late Shaik Masthan Bi, in case, the petitioner is the sole legal heir, to the petitioner, with utmost expedition and in any case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No order as to costs.