SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 20887

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V.SUJATHA
Parimala Padmamma – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WP 6915/2026



##PAGE1##

1

2026:APHC:21913

APHC010126202026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

WRIT PETITION NO: 6915 of 2026

Between:

1. PARIMALA PADMAMMA,, W/O LATE SRI VENKATA CHALAPATHI

BABU, D/O LATE SRI G. BALARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

R/O. HARIJANAWADA, CHILLAKUR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA

PRADESH - 524412.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY, FINANCE (PENSION) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,

VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. - 522239

2. THE ENGINEERINCHIEF RANDB, ROADS AND BUILDINGS

DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,

VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.-520001

3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS

CIRCLE, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. -524001

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS DIVISION,

GUDUR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. -524001

5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS

SUB-DIVISION, GUDUR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. - 524001

...RESPONDENT(S):

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

##PAGE2##

2

2026:APHC:21913

pleased to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature

of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in not

sanctioning family pension to the Petitioner and further not considering the

representations, dated 24.10.2025 of the petitioner by the Respondents as

illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and against the Principles of Natural

Justice and consequently as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and

21 of the Constitution of India declare that the insistence on consent or no-

objection letters from other family members is contrary to the provisions of the

A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 consequently direct the Respondents to

sanction and disburse family pension to the Petitioner under Rule 50(5) and

Rule 50(12) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 read with

G.O.Ms.No.315 dated 07.10.2010 direct payment of arrears from the date of

eligibility together with dearness relief and all consequential benefits

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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

direct the Respondent authorities to process the application of the Petitioner

and provisionally sanction and release Widow Family Pension to the

Petitioner without insisting upon consent or no-objection letters from other

family members, in accordance with Rule 50(5) and Rule 50(12) of the A.P.

Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and G.O.Ms.No.315 Finance (Pension-1)

Department dated 07.10.2010, pending disposal of the above writ petition

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. V ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES I

2. GP FOR SERVICES II

The Court made the following:

##PAGE3##

3

2026:APHC:21913

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

WRIT PETITION NO: 6915 of 2026

ORDER:-

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondents in

not sanctioning family pension to the Petitioner and further not considering

the representation of the Petitioner, dated 24.10.2025 by the Respondents as

illegal and arbitrary.

2. The precise case of the Petitioner is that she is a widowed daughter

of late Sri G. Balaramaiah, who retired from service in Roads and Buildings

Department as a Gang Muster on 31.10.2012 on attaining the age of

superannuation. Thereafter pension was sanctioned under the provisions of

A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980. The mother of the Petitioner died on

02.12.2024 and the father of the Petitioner died on 02.02.2025. The husband

of the Petitioner died on 19.03.1991. Upon demise of both the parents and the

husband of the Petitioner, she comes under the definition of dependent of the

deceased pensioner in accordance with Rule 50(5) read with Rule 50 (12) of

the A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.315,

Finance

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top