Andhra Pradesh High Court

WP/4339/2023 of BOBBILI NAGA DURGA Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 13 July 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

for orders : Date of pronouncement : 14.07.2026 Date of uploading :22.07.2026 APHC010085042023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3573] TUESDAY, THE 14th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO:

Date of reserved for orders :

Date of pronouncement : 14.07.2026

Date of uploading :22.07.2026

APHC010085042023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE 14th DAY OF JULY 2026

PRESENT

Between:

1. BOBBILI NAGA DURGA, S/O (LATE) SRI BOBBILI RAMA RAO, PUBLIC HEALTH WORKER (TERMINATED), GUNTUR MUNICIPAL

CORPORATION, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO.15-18-76 MARUTHI

NAGAR, OLD GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT OF A.P., VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE GUNTUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY

MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

3. THE

DEPUTY

COMMISSIONERII,

GUNTUR

MUNICIPAL

CORPORATION, GUNTUR.

4. THE CHIEF MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER, GUNTUR MUNICIPAL

CORPORATION, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. T V SRI DEVI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES IV

2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP)

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings in Roc.No.501709/2020/C1 dated 14.02.2023 issued by the 2nd respondent, whereby the petitioner, who was appointed as a Public Health Worker on compassionate grounds, was terminated on the ground that the father of the petitioner was a pensioner who was retired from service in Guntur Municipal Corporation.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the mother of the petitioner, while working as a Public Health Worker in the Guntur Municipal Corporation, died on 05.05.2020, leaving behind the petitioner as her only son. In view of the family conditions and also after considering the unemployment of the petitioner, the respondent - Corporation appointed the petitioner on compassionate grounds vide proceedings in Roc.No. 501709/2020/C1 dated 15.11.2020 as Public Health Worker. Subsequently, based on a complaint received from one Mr. Bangaru Anjaneya Prasad alleging that the father of the petitioner is a pensioner, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. After considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the services of the petitioner were terminated by placing reliance on Circular Memo No.3548/Ser.G/A2/ 2010-8, dated 24.03.2012, which stipulates that where one of the parents of an applicant is in receipt of a service pension, the dependent child would not be entitled for compassionate appointment.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in W.P.No.34079 of 2022, wherein the similar issue was fell for consideration before a Coordinate Bench of this court and held as follows:

14. The fact is that the Circular Memo No.3548/Ser.G/A2/2010-8, dated 24.03.2012 expressly stood set aside by the Hon‟ble Tribunal vide Order dated 20.02.2018 (Ex.P.10). The relevant portion of the Order of the Hon‟ble Tribunal is usefully extracted hereunder: “8. A perusal of the above observations of the Apex Court would clearly show that the object of providing compassionate appointment and the purpose sought to be achieved through the same is only to provide livelihood, but it is not a kind of recruitment. It was never the case of the respondents that family members of an employee died in harness, will be provided with compassionate appointment and that they will not be provided with any family pension. Further, as per the scheme cited by the respondents in G.O.Ms.No.687, dated 03.10.1977, the first and foremost condition for providing compassionate appointment is that there will be no other earning member in the family. In the case on hand, the applicant‟s father is a pensioner and also receiving family pension. With regard to this aspect, this court has already held that a pensioner cannot be treated as earning member, because, the pension is a component paid by the employer for the services rendered by the employee in order to sustenance after retirement and therefore, a pensioner cannot be treated as an earning member of the family. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the applicant‟s father is a pensioner and thereby, the applicant is not entitled for compassionate appointment cannot be accepted. Nowhere in the scheme of compassionate appointment, there is a condition that the compassionate appointment will be provided to those family members, who are not in receipt of family pension. Therefore, the ground taken by the respondents in denying the applicant compassionate appointment on the ground that his father is a pensioner and receiving family pension is totally untenable and defeats the very object of providing compassionate appointment. Therefore, the Circular Memo No.3548/Ser.G/A2/2010-8, dated 24.03.2012 to the effect that pension is an earning and pensioner is to be treated as an earning member, to deny very consideration of himself or his family members for appointment under the scheme of compassionate grounds, is liable to be declared as illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the Circular Memo No.3548/Ser.G/A2/2010- 8, dated 24.03.2012 issued by the 3rd respondent and the order in Rc.No.A4/162/2013, dated 11.07.2013 issued by the 1st respondent, rejecting the case of the applicant in O.A.No.3012/2015 are set aside.” (emphasis supplied)

5. As the above said Circular Memo dated 24.03.2012 was struck down by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.3012 of 2015 vide order dated 20.02.2018, and as the said view has been consistently followed in several decisions of this Court, the same has attained finality. Thus, the Circular Memo rendered unenforceable.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a similar issue was fell for consideration in W.P.No.20266 of 2021, wherein this Court, placing reliance on the judgment in W.P.No.27465 of 2017, held that mere receipt of the family pension by wife of the deceased would not disentitle an applicant from seeking compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the order of rejection therein was set aside, directing the 4th respondent therein to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on another judgment of this Court in W.P.No.9553 of 2021, whereby this Court held that drawing family pension is not a ground for rejection of compassionate appointment by following the view expressed in W.A.No.700 of 2018 dated 29.11.2018.

8. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, and the catena of judgments relied upon by the petitioner, the impugned order dated 14.02.2023 vide Roc.No.501709/2020/C1 is hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________

JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 14.07.2026 Dvs Whether the order is: Speaking ☑ Reasoned ☑ Reportable

Non-reportable ☑

Dt: 14.07.2026 Dvs

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead