Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/13686/2024 of Sri.Muthanna Goud Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 10 February 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 13686/2024 Between: Sri.muthanna Goud ...PETITIONER AND The State Of
APHC010274662024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 13686/2024
Between:
Sri.muthanna Goud
...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M K VISWANATH NAIDU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY
2. GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following:
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:
The present Writ Petition is filed praying the Court to issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the impugned proceedings issued by the 3th Respondent vide Rc No 598/DDRFO/KNL/2024 Dated 25.04.2024 and Rc.No.598/ DDRFO/KNL/2024
Dated 16.05.2024 and the inaction of the respondents herein in releasing the pension and Pensionary and Retirement benefits payable to the Petitioner herein purportedly under the ground of bigamy without considering the dissolution of the Petitioners 1st marriage as per customary practices prevailing in the Petitioners Panchamasale Lingayat Caste as wholly arbitrary illegal contrary to A P Civil Services Conduct Rules 1964 besides being violative of the Petitioners rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to release the pension payable to the petitioner and his retirement and pensionary benefits with all its arrears for the least four years to enable the petitioner to lead dignified life and/of pass such other orders.
2. A perusal of the averments made in the writ petition discloses that there are certain disputes between the petitioner and the 5th respondent and based on the representation made by the 5th respondent, 3rd respondent has issued memo dated 16.05.2024 stating that as the disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 19.05.2024 for second marriage when the first wife-5th respondent is living and filed a suit O.S.No.34 of 2020 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Gangavathi against the 3rd respondent herein seeking permanent injunction from disbursing the arrears and retirement benefits of the petitioner herein.
3. As the 5th respondent has already approached the competent civil court by filing a suit O.S.No.34 of 2020 and the said suit was dismissed on 05.04.2024 with following observations:
<That, the plaintiff even after imposing the cost has not appeared before the court to lead evidence. Hence, it appears that, plaintiff is not interested to proceed with the case. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff is deserves to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Hence, the suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed for non-prosecution.=
4. When the competent civil court has dismissed the suit filed by the 5th respondent, the respondent ought not to have withheld the pensionary benefits based on the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings which were initiated on the complaint made by the 5th respondent.
5. In reply, issuing a charge memo dated 19.05.2020, the respondents 1 to 4 have not proceeded with the enquiry and the suit filed by the 5th respondent has also dismissed for non prosecution. In the said circumstances, the respondents 1 to 4 ought not to have withheld the pensionary benefits and which is contrary to Rule 9 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980.
6. Reply to the said contention, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent has submitted that after dismissal of the suit, 5th respondent has also initiated proceedings for restoration of the suit and she is pursuing the same.
Considering the said submission made by the counsels and as per the averments made in the writ petition and also perusal of the record reveal that the 5th respondent has filed suit and the said suit was dismissed and there is no evidence or declaration by any authority or court, hence, the respondents ought not to have withheld the pensionary benefits contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 to 4 to release the pensionary benefits forthwith to the petitioner. If the 5th respondent is able to prove in the pending suit and if it is restored or decreed in favour of the 5th respondent, the 5th respondent may file recovery petition by initiating appropriate proceedings in the same court. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________ D. RAMESH,J Date:11.02.2026 Gk.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH
WRIT PETITION No.13686 OF 2024
Date:11.02.2026 Gk