Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/3301/2026 of D LAKSHMI DEVI Vs THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR on 25 February 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 3301/2026 Between: 1. D LAKSHMI DEVI, W/O LATE D. VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
APHC010053242026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 3301/2026
Between:
1. D LAKSHMI DEVI, W/O LATE D. VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71
YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O D.NO. 6-1-485, LAKSHMI NAGAR, ANANTAPURAMU, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT-515001. 2
2. . D. GANGADHAR,, S/O LATE D. VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51
YEARS, OCC UN-EMPLOYEE, R/O D.NO. 6-1-485, LAKSHMI
NAGAR, ANANTAPURAMU, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT-515001.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH
SOUTHERN
POWER
DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY
LIMITED
(APSPDCL), ANANTAPURAMU, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT-515001. 2.
2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATION TOWN DIVISION, APSPDCL, ANANTAPURAMU, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT-515001.
3..
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION TOWN DIVISION, APSPDCL, ANANTAPURAMU, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT-515001.
4.
4. THE
ASSISTANT
DIVISIONAL
ENGINEER,
APSPDCL,
DHARMAVARAM, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT-515671. 5.
5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, APSPDCL, C.K. PAULI MANDAL.
ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT-515511
...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 pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus a) Declare that the inaction of Respondents to release family pension and death benefits to the 1St Petitioner from the date of her entitlement is illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21. b) Declare that the action of Respondents in not disposing the Petitioners Representation dt.
01.12.2025 for considering the 2nd Petitioners i.e., D.Gangadhar candidature for compassionate appointment is arbitrary, illegal and violation of Articles 14
and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently a) Direct Respondents to release family pension, death benefits, arrears, and all consequential monetary benefits to the 1st Petitioner from the date of her entitlement. b)
Direct Respondents to consider and appoint the 2nd Petitioner on compassionate grounds with all consequential and monitory benefits. c) Pass 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 For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit in support of the writ petition, it is further humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may to direct the Respondents to consider the Petitioner's Representation dt. 01.12.2025
for considering the 2ND d Petitioner's i.e D. Gangadhar candidature for compassionate appointment in accordance with law pending disposal of the Writ Petition before this Hon'ble Court and to pass IA NO: 2 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 pleased to direct the Respondents 1 to 5 to Release Family Pension to the 1st Petitioner forthwith pending disposal of the Writ Petition before this Hon'ble Court and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. O UDAYA KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL
2. GP FOR SERVICES I
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
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…
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:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus a) Declare that the inaction of Respondents to release family pension and death benefits to the 1St Petitioner from the date of her entitlement is illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21. b) Declare that the action of Respondents in not disposing the Petitioners Representation dt. 01.12.2025 for considering the 2nd Petitioners i.e., D.Gangadhar candidature for compassionate appointment is arbitrary, illegal and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently a) Direct Respondents to release family pension, death benefits, arrears, and all consequential monetary benefits to the 1st Petitioner from the date of her entitlement. b) Direct Respondents to consider and appoint the 2nd Petitioner on compassionate grounds with all consequential and monitory benefits. c) Pass…”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. The contention of the petitioners is that owing to certain disputes with regard to their family, they approached the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur by filing O.P.No.140 of 2005 and the said O.P. was dismissed vide order dated 10.06.2010. Against the same, the petitioners filed C.M.A.No.610 of 2010 before this Court. The said Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was disposed of vide order dated 23.02.2023 with the following observations:
“…24. Ergo, the 1st petitioner/D.Lakshmidevi being legally wedded wife of the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah, petitioner Nos.2/D.Chandra Sekhar and 3/D.Gangadhar being the sons of the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah, they are entitled for the death benefits and other amounts of the deceased/Late D.Venkataiah. It goes without saying respondent No.7 being the son of the deceased also entitled to his share along with the petitioners…”
4. Now the grievance of the petitioners is that despite the said orders are confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court by dismissing the S.L.P., the respondents are not considering for release of the pensioner benefits to the 1st petitioner as well as the consideration of the case of the 2nd petitioner for compassionate appointment.
5. Sri Venkata Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5, contended that there is no dispute with regard to the implementation of the orders passed by this Court in C.M.A. No. 610 of 2010. However, certain dues are payable by the deceased. If the petitioners deposit the said dues, the respondents would consider releasing the pensionary benefits as directed by this Court. Alternatively, if permitted by this Court, the respondents may deduct the said dues from the retiral benefits and release the remaining amount to the petitioners herein.
6. As far as the case of the 2nd petitioner for consideration for compassionate appointment is concerned, there is a rival claim from children of 2nd wife i.e., D.Venkataramana.
7. In the said circumstances, there shall be a direction to the respondent authorities to consider both the applications of the 2nd petitioner as well as D.Venkataramana and based on the qualifications and feasibility their case may be considered, in accordance with law. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three (03) months.
8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH
Date: 26.02.2026 M K K
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION No.3301 of 2026
Dated: 26.02.2026
M K K