Disposed¶42

Veeranala Krishna Kumari, v. The state of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Feb 2026WP/17209/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

family pension; nominee not named; Rule 50(5)(a); A.P. Revised Pension Rules; Deputy Tahsildar; terminal benefits; endorsement dated 28.01.2020; proof of marriage; legal heir certificate; rejection set aside; remand to competent authority; two-month deadline; Articles 14 and 21; writ of mandamus; Andhra Pradesh; Kadapa; YSR Kadapa; Accountant General; District Treasury.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement dated 28.01.2020 set aside; matter remanded to the competent authority to consider the petitioner's case per Rule 50(5)(a) of the Revised Pension Rules, affording her an opportunity to furnish required records, and to pass appropriate orders within two months; no costs; pending interlocutory applications closed. ¶42

Veeranala Krishna Kumari, Vs The state of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the rejection of the petitioner's claim for family pension vide endorsement dated 28.01.2020, solely on the ground that her name was not shown as nominee in the pension proposals and without calling for proof of marriage/legal heir certificate, is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Rule 50(5)(a) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules.

¶40

Court's answer

The impugned endorsement dated 28.01.2020 rejecting the petitioner's family pension claim is set aside and the matter is remanded to the competent authority to consider the petitioner's case.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

If any records are required, the competent authority shall provide the petitioner an opportunity to furnish them by granting a reasonable period, and the petitioner is directed to provide all concerned records for release of the family pension.

¶41

Key takeaways

The authorities shall consider the petitioner's case as per Rule 50(5)(a) of the Revised Pension Rules and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Art. 226) — denial of family pension to widow of deceased Deputy Tahsildar (retired 30.6.2012, died 07.6.2019) — claim rejected vide endorsement dated 28.01.2020 solely because petitioner was not named nominee in the pension proposals, without calling for proof of marriage or legal heir certificate — held contrary to Rule 50(5)(a) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules — endorsement set aside — competent authority directed to reconsider the case per Rule 50(5)(a), grant the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to furnish required records, and pass appropriate orders within two (02) months of receipt of copy of the order — petitioner directed to supply all concerned records — Writ Petition disposed of, no costs; interlocutory applications closed. (Justice D Ramesh, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, 06.02.2026)

¶1

APHC010331232025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3208]

¶5

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 17209/2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

VEERANALA KRISHNA KUMARI,, W/O. LATE M SUBBARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O. 42/604-1, N G O COLONY, CHINNACHOWK, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA-516002

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI.

¶14

THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERALAANDE, ANDHRA PRADESH, STALIN CENTRAL MALL, 7TH FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, GOVERNOR PET, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520002

¶15

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶16

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KADAPA DIVISION, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶17

ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICE KADAPA, YSR KADAPA

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring the inaction of the respondents in not sanctioning and disbursing the family pension and other terminal benefits of the petitioner's late husband as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith sanction and disburse the family pension and all other terminal benefits, together with arrears and interest at an

¶20

¶21

appropriate rate from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents, to disposed the representations dated 03.02.2025 and to sanction Family Pension expeditiously, to issue orders in the writ petition and pass such other or orders are deemed fit and proper.

¶24

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to amend the Main prayer as “Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring the inaction of the respondents and the rejection of the petitioner’s claim for family pension vide endorsement dated 28.01.2020 issued by the 4 illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; and consequently set aside the said endorsement dated 28.01.2020 and direct the respondents to forthwith sanction and disburse the family pension and other terminal benefits of the petitioner’s late husband, together with arrears and interest at an appropriate rate from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment; and pass

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶27

1.MUJTAHID HUSSAIN

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶30

2.A JAYANTHI

¶31

The Court made the following:

¶32

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

The present Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶35

“to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ or order i to declaring the inaction of the respondents in not sanctioning and disbursing the family pension and other terminal benefits of the petitioner's late husband as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith sanction and disburse the family pension and all other terminal benefits, together with arrears and interest at an appropriate rate from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment….”

¶36

Heard M/s. Mujtahid Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.

¶37

The grievance of the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner worked as Deputy Tahsildar and retired on 30.6.2012 and subsequently he has died on 07.6.2019. Consequent upon, the petitioner has made an application for release of family pension. Even after repeated requests, the same has not been considered and finally the request of the petitioner was rejected vide impugned endorsement dated 28.01.2020 only on the ground that the name of the petitioner has not been shown as nominee in the pension proposals.

¶38

Learned counsel contended that if at all the deceased employee has not shown the petitioner as nominee, the authority should have asked the proof of marriage and legal heir certificate and basing on the said certificates, the authorities have to forward the proposals as per Rule

¶39

¶40

50(5)(a) of the A.P.Revised Pension Rules. But a perusal of the endorsement shows that without calling the records and proofs from the petitioner, straight away the authorities rejected the proposals on the ground that the name of the petitioner was not shown as nominee in the proposal forms, which is contrary to the statutory provision. More particularly as per the A.P.Revised Pension Rules as stated supra.

¶41

Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents submitted that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 6. Considering the submissions of both sides, the impugned endorsement is set aside remanding the matter to the competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner, if at all any records are required an opportunity may be provided to the petitioner to provide such records by granting certain reasonable period and the petitioner is also directed to provide all the concerned records for release of the family pension and basing on the said record, the authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner as per Rule 50(5)(a) of the Revised Pension Rules and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶42