D Lakshmi Devi Vs the Chairman and Managing Director

D LAKSHMI DEVI, W/O LATE D. VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O D.NO. 6-1-485, LAKSHMI NAGAR, ANANTAPURAMU, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT-515001. 2

¶10

. D. GANGADHAR,, S/O LATE D. VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O D.NO. 6-1-485, LAKSHMI NAGAR, ANANTAPURAMU, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT-515001.

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED (APSPDCL), ANANTAPURAMU, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT-515001. 2.

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATION TOWN DIVISION, APSPDCL, ANANTAPURAMU, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT-515001. 3..

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION TOWN DIVISION, APSPDCL, ANANTAPURAMU, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT-515001. 4.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, APSPDCL, DHARMAVARAM, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT-515671. 5.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, APSPDCL, C.K. PAULI MANDAL.

¶18

ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT-515511

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus a) Declare that the inaction of Respondents to release family pension and death benefits to the 1St Petitioner from the date of her entitlement is illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21. b) Declare that the action of Respondents in not disposing the Petitioners Representation dt. 01.12.2025 for considering the 2^nd Petitioners i.e., D.Gangadhar candidature for compassionate appointment is arbitrary, illegal and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently a) Direct Respondents to release family pension, death benefits, arrears, and all consequential monetary benefits to the 1^st Petitioner from the date of her entitlement. b) Direct Respondents to consider and appoint the 2^nd Petitioner on compassionate grounds with all consequential and monitory benefits. c) Pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶22

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 For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit in support of the writ petition, it is further humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may to direct the Respondents to consider the Petitioner's Representation dt. 01.12.2025 for considering the 2ND d Petitioner's i.e D. Gangadhar candidature for compassionate appointment in accordance with law pending disposal of the Writ Petition before this Hon'ble Court and to pass

¶23

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

¶24

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 1 to 5 to Release Family Pension to the 1st Petitioner forthwith pending disposal of the Writ Petition before this Hon'ble Court and to pass

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶26

1.O UDAYA KUMAR

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL

¶29

2.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶33

“…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus a) Declare that the inaction of Respondents to release family pension and death benefits to the 1St Petitioner from the date of her entitlement is illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21. b) Declare that the action of Respondents in not disposing the Petitioners Representation dt. 01.12.2025 for considering the 2nd Petitioners i.e., D.Gangadhar candidature for compassionate appointment is arbitrary, illegal and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently a) Direct Respondents to release family pension, death benefits, arrears, and all consequential monetary benefits to the 1st Petitioner from the date of her entitlement. b) Direct Respondents to consider and appoint the 2nd Petitioner on compassionate grounds with all consequential and monitory benefits. c) Pass…”

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶35

The contention of the petitioners is that owing to certain disputes with regard to their family, they approached the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur by filing O.P.No.140 of 2005 and the said O.P. was dismissed vide order dated 10.06.2010. Against the same, the petitioners filed C.M.A.No.610 of 2010 before this Court. The said Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was disposed of vide order dated 23.02.2023 with the following observations:

¶36

“…24. Ergo, the 1^st petitioner/D.Lakshmidevi being legally wedded wife of the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah, petitioner Nos.2/D.Chandra Sekhar and 3/D.Gangadhar being the sons of the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah, they are entitled for the death benefits and other amounts of the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah. It goes without saying respondent No.7 being the son of the deceased also entitled to his share along with the petitioners…”

¶37

Now the grievance of the petitioners is that despite the said orders are confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court by dismissing the S.L.P., the respondents are not considering for release of the pensioner benefits to the 1^st petitioner as well as the consideration of the case of the 2^nd petitioner for compassionate appointment.

¶38

Sri Venkata Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5, contended that there is no dispute with regard to the implementation of the orders passed by this Court in C.M.A. No. 610 of 2010. However, certain dues are payable by the deceased. If the petitioners deposit the said dues, the respondents would consider releasing the pensionary benefits as directed by this Court. Alternatively, if permitted by this Court, the respondents may deduct the said dues from the retiral benefits and release the remaining amount to the petitioners herein.

¶39

As far as the case of the 2^nd petitioner for consideration for compassionate appointment is concerned, there is a rival claim from children of 2^nd wife i.e., D.Venkataramana.

¶40

In the said circumstances, there shall be a direction to the respondent authorities to consider both the applications of the 2^nd petitioner

¶41

as well as D.Venkataramana and based on the qualifications and feasibility their case may be considered, in accordance with law. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three (03) months.

¶42