Back
AP High Court Rules Mother Can Apply for Despite Married Son's Death
The has affirmed that a mother is entitled to independently apply for a after her married son’s death, striking down a ’s refusal that hinged solely on the son’s marital status.
In a significant ruling, Justice B. S. Bhanumathi quashed the ’s and directed the officer to follow the procedure prescribed under , , dated , for issuing the certificate. The court clarified that a mother’s application cannot be made contingent on the deceased’s wife choosing to apply.
Case Background
The petitioner, Mandula Khasim Bi, is the mother of Mandula Moulali, a Police Constable who died by suicide on . She applied for a through the Meeseva portal to claim legal benefits and was shown as the in her son’s service records. However, the , Rompicherla Mandal, rejected her application via an dated .
The reasoned that since the deceased was married to Shaik Fathima, only his wife and any children could be considered family members. The officer noted that Moulali had filed a (O.S.No.76 of 2025), which was dismissed after his death. The further stated that the petitioner had sought a certificate excluding the wife, and that under the relevant government rules, “the mother of a married son cannot be considered as a family member.”
Arguments Presented
Petitioner’s Stand: Relying on , counsel argued that the procedure mandates a , an , and a before issuance or rejection. He contended that a mother is inherently a family member, and her application cannot be made dependent on the wife’s application. Even if other eligible members exist, they can be included after due .
Respondent’s Stand: The defended the rejection, submitting that as per the existing rules and the pending divorce case, the mother of a married government employee is not entitled to the certificate. The instructions also noted that the petitioner had an of before the .
Legal Analysis and Key Observations
The court examined the procedure under , which allows the to issue a upon application, provided there is no written objection from other family members. The certificate is a factual statement of relationship and is not a substitute for a Certificate.
Justice Bhanumathi observed that the petitioner, being the mother and , is a and family member, regardless of the son’s marital status. The court rejected the notion that the mother must wait for the wife to apply, stating:
“As the petitioner claims to be the to the service benefits of her son, she might have applied for a . Apart from being , the petitioner, being the mother of the deceased government employee, even in the presence of wife or / and child / children of the deceased employee, is a and a family member. As such, the petitioner can apply for issuance of a .”
The court further directed that if any other family members are found entitled after , they should be included alongside the mother. The was described as “.”
Court’s Decision
The was allowed. The court set aside the ’s dated , and directed the fourth respondent () to follow the procedure under and issue the to the petitioner if she is found to be the mother of the deceased, along with names of other family members, if any. No costs were awarded.
Implications: The ruling reinforces that a mother’s status as a family member is independent of her son’s marriage. It ensures that mothers of deceased government employees are not unfairly excluded from death benefits and other entitlements simply because the employee was married. The decision also clarifies that the issuance of such certificates must follow a fair , not an arbitrary rejection based on incomplete reasoning.
Case Title: Case No.: W.P. No. 14703 of 2026 Counsel for Petitioner: Counsel for Respondents:
