Disposed

Begari Yellamma, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC24 Dec 2025WP/39677/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Widow sought family pension after her husband, a retired ESI Hospital employee, died. Without going into merits, the High Court directed respondent No.3 to consider her pending representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.3 directed to consider representation dated 09.12.2025 and pass appropriate orders within six weeks; no costs.

Begari Yellamma, Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 39677 0F 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

Pggari Yellamma, Wo. Late B. Krishnaiah, Aged about 52 years, Occ.Housewife, R:/ o.H.No.1-71l A, Bodmatpaile, Tekmal Manaal, li/edak DiStrict.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, RgO. bV its Special Chief Secretary, Labour !nlployment^{Training and Factories(Emp-Vig) Department, Secretariat} Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Director of lnsurance Medical Services, Telangana State, Hyderabad. The Medical Superintendent, ESI Hospital, Ramchandrapuram, Sangareddy District.

¶14

4 Principal Accountant General (A and E), Telangana State, Hyderabad District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the claim of the petitioner for granting of family pension in view of the death of her late husband is illegal arbitrary and u nconstitutio na I with a consequential direction to the respondents to grant family pension to the petitioner with arrears.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

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 to

¶19

direct the respondents to grant family pension to the :;titioner forthwith by disposing of her representation dated 09.12.2025.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NAYAKAWADI RAMESH

¶21

Counsel forthe Respondent No 1: GP FOR SERVICES ll

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No 2: GP FOR SERVICES lll

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No 3: GP FOR SERVICES I

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No 4: SRI MURALI KRISHNA

¶25

STANDING C( UNSEL

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.39677 OF 2025

¶30

THE TIVENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FTVE

Between:

Begari Yellammma

Petitioner

AND

Statc oFTelangana, rep. by its Special Chiel Sccretary. Labour, Employment, 1'raining & Facrories (Emp.Vig) Dr-partmenr. Secretrriar,

¶36

Hyderabad & (3) others.

¶37

Re spon den ts

¶38

ORDER:

¶39

This Writ Petition is filed declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the claim of the petitioner for granting family pension in view of the death of her husband late B.Krishnaiah, as arbitrary and il1ega1.

¶40

Heard Sri Navakrvadi Rzrmesh, learned counsel lor the petitioner, learned GovernmenL Plcader for Services-ll for rcspondent No. 1 , Government Pleader for Services-Ill for respondent No.2, Government Pieader for Ser-vices I for respondent No.3 and Sri

¶41

.-I

¶42

M.Murali Krishna, learned Standing Counsel for^{.espondentNo.4} With their consent, this Writ Petition is taken up I rr disposal at^the admission stage itself.

¶43

The learned counsel for the petitioner^s rbmits that the husband of the petitioner late Begari Krishnaiah worked as MNO (Ma1e Nurse Orderly) in ESI Hospital, Ra^t rachandrapuram, Sangreddy district and retired from service on 3^{1 .I} 2016 and later he died on 26.6.2025, leaving behind the^petitioner and three sons. Therefore, petitloner has submitted a representati^I r on 9. 12.2025 to the respondent No.3, requesting to consider^frr gralt of family pension, but so far no action has been taken by tht respondent No.3. Hencc, petitioner seeks indulgeuce of this^Cc,r Lrt to direct the respondent No:3 to pass appropriate^order i on the said representation dated 9.12.2025 and^{releasefarr i} 1,^{pensionto the} petitioner.

¶44

The learned counsel appearing for the rer;^{rondentssubmits} that the representation of the^petitioner is^pendin 1^{u,ith respondent} No-3 and the same u,il1 be considered, in^accordan<: with^lau,

¶45

Having regard to the submissions madc b1, the respective parties and u,ithout going into mcrits of the matter, the writ petition 1S disposed of, directrng the respondent No.3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 9.12.2025 and^pass appropriate orders thereon b1- putting on notice to the affecting parties, if any, in accordance u,ith 1arv, as expeditiously as possible, prqferably u,ithin a period ol six r.r,ecl<s lrom thc date of reccipt of a copy of this order. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition sha11 stand closecl. There shall be no order as to cosls

¶46

SD/. C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT^REGISTR

//TRUE COPY'

SECTION OFFICER

To, 1-TheSoecialChiefSecretary,stateofTelangana,LabourEmplolyment' iil]"-.-,irii"a FJcioii". (Em'p_Vig ) Department, secrerariat Build ings, Hyderabad.

¶52

The Director of^{lnsurance Medical services,Telanganastate,Hyderabad.}

¶53

The^{lr/ledicalSuperintendent'ESIHospital, Ramchandrapuram' Sangareddy} District.

¶54

4.PrincipalAccountantGeneral(AandE),TelanganaState'HyderabadDistrict

¶55

One CC to SRl.^{NAYAKAWADIRAMESH,Advocate IOPUCI}

¶56

6.TwoCCstoGPFoRSERV|CESll'HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad^. [OUT]

¶57

T.TwoCCstoGPFoRSERVICES-I,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶58

TwoCCsto GP^{FOR lll, High Court forthe State of Telangana at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶59

One CC to^{SRI t,4URALl KRISHNA, STANDING COUNSEL'[OPUC]}

¶60

Two CD CoPies l, 4t. "6e.N TKS

''t

HIGH COURT

DATED:2411212025

ORDER

WP.No.39677 of 2025

,.=:::-=:
c)
(j il t ft8 20t0
I .. ( ' .=;.; l-.:- - --.-.. ,-; ,

¶67

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶68

WITHOUT COSTS

¶69

\
xL
c^ ),

Begari Yellamma, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Begari Yellamma, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Nagasri Vs State of Telangana

A.Purnachandar Rao Vs The State of Telangana

T. Srinivas Rao, Vs The State of Telangana

Sanaboina Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Smt P. Lavanya Vs The State of Telangana

B.Durga Rao Vs The State of Telangana