Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/10563/2021 of SMT SHAIK NAZEERA (WIDOW) Vs THE STATE OF AP on 14 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 15 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 10563/2021 BETWEEN: 1. SMT SHAIK NAZEERA (WIDOW), D/o. MOHD HASANUDDIN HOUSEWIFE, R/o. H.No.18 CHANDRAINGUTTA, HYDERABAD. 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS
APHC010183112021
IN THE H
(
TUESDAY, T
THE HONOURABLE S
WRIT
BETWEEN:
1. SMT SHAIK NAZE
HOUSEWIFE,
CHANDRAINGUTT
1. THE STATE OF A
AND
CAD
DEP
VELAGAPUDI, AM
2. THE
ENGINEE
DEPARTMENT, GU
3. THE EXECUTIVE
LINGAMAGUNTLA
4. THE DY EXECUTIV
CANAL O AND M
5. THE ACCOUNTAN
Petition under Artic
in the circumstances s
Court may be pleased t
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THE 15th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
PRESENT
SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR
T PETITION No. 10563/2021
EERA (WIDOW), D/o. MOHD HASAN
R/o.
H.No.18-1-404/1/A
TALLAK
TA, HYDERABAD.
...PETIT
AND
AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRET
PARTMENT
SECRETARIAT
BUIL
MARAVATHI GUNTUR DIST.
R
IN
CHIEF
WATER
RESO
UNTUR GUNTUR DIST.
E ENGINEER, NSJC O AND M DI
A, NARASARAOPET, GUNTUR DIST.
VE ENGINEER, NAGARJUNA SAGAR
SDN SANTAGUDIPADU GUNTUR DIS
NT GENERAL, AP AT HYDERABAD
...RESPONDE
cle 226 of the Constitution of India pray stated in the affidavit filed therewith, t to issue writ order or direction more par
R RAO
NUDDIN
KUNTA,
TIONER
TARY I
DINGS,
OURCE
VISION
RIGHT
ST
ENT(S):
ying that
he High
rticularly
one in the nature of writ mandamus by calling for the records relating to impugned orders vide proc.PM2/AP/A2/97/I/M-504/SP-280/1995- 96/296297/91 DT.16.03.2020 issued by the 4th respondent and set aside the same by declaring as illegal, arbitrary and voilative of the principles of natural justice and also contrary to the rules and consequently direct the respondents to release the family pension to the petitioner in terms of GOMs 152, Finance Department dt.25.11.2019 is not applicable in the case of the petitioner and such other order or orders.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.P RAGHAVENDRA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR SERVICES III
2.K SWARNA SESHU
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The father of the petitioner was worked as driver of the heavy vehicle in the office of the 4th respondent, retired from service on 31.03.1994 and he was granted pension. And the father of the petitioner died on 27.01.2012. After the death of the father of the petitioner, the family pension was paid to the mother of the petitioner herein and the mother also died on 08.06.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted family pension in terms of G.O.Ms.No.315, (Finance-I) Department, dated 07.10.2010. The 3rd respondent issued impugned order dated 16.03.2020, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension on the ground that the petitioner herein applied for the family pension after a period of one year from the death of the petitioner, placing the reliance of G.O.Ms.No.152 Finance (HR.III
– Pension) Department, dated 25.11.2019. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is filed to direct the respondent authorities to grant family pension in terms of G.O.Ms.No.315, (Finance-I) Department dated 07.10.2010.
2. The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit on his behalf and on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. In the counter affidavit, it is specifically stated in paragraph No.5 that G.O.Ms.No.152, Finance (HR.III – Pension) Department, dated 25.11.2019 was set aside by order dated 05.03.2021 of this Court in W.P. No.19671 of 2020 and
Batch, and held that the said G.O. is contrary to Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent has not received any orders from the Government and stated that after receiving the orders from the Government, action/ further steps would be taken for payment of family pension to the petitioner herein.
3. Recently the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maya Banerjee Vs Union of India and others1 held that, a widow claiming family pension cannot be denied arrears merely because she approached the Courts belatedly, where the delay was on account of her poverty, illiteracy, and the employer’s own illegality. This ruling departs from the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh2 wherein the relief of arrears of pension was restricted to three years prior to filing of the writ petition.
4. In view of the specific assertion in the counter affidavit, the present Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to examine representation/case of the petitioner for payment of family pension in terms of G.O.Ms.No.315, Finance (Pension-I) Department, dated 07.10.2010, as expeditiously as possible, not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
1 2026 INSC 959 2 (2008) 8 SCC 648
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 15.09.2026
Harin
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
W.P.No. 10563 of 2021
Date: 15-09-2026
Harin