1 APHC010255902023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3429] MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 753 OF 2023 Between: Golla Jyothi ...APPELLANT AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. Mr.P SAI SURYA TEJA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Mr. Gudapati Lakshminarayana, Standing Counsel for Municipalities in Rayalaseema Region 2. GP for Services IV 3. Mr. Manoj Kumar Bethapudi 2 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: (Per NJS,J) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. 2) The present Writ Appeal is preferred against the orders of the learned single Judge dated 19.12.2022 in W.P.No.18267 of 2021. The appellant herein filed the said writ petition seeking following reliefs: “...to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly lie one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Municipality in not considering the Petitioners Representations dated 19.02.2021, 09.04.2021 and 18.06.2021 for compassionate appointment and release of the death benefits of the deceased employee (Golla Vijaya Kumar) including family pension, gratuity, insurance as per the Rules in G.O.Ms.No.1005 dated 27.12.1974 (Employment and Social Welfare (G) Department), G.O.Ms.No.612 dated 30.10.1991, G.O.Ms.No.697 dated 30.10.1997 Government Memo Nos.618 SER-A/78-11 dated 17.12.1979, 71558/Ser.A/98-1 dated 23.11.1998, 140733/SER.A/2003-1, dated 14.11.2003 (General Administration (Ser.A) Department), Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and Andhra Pradesh State Employees Group Insurance Scheme, 1984 to the Petitioner and in trying give compassionate appointment and release the such death benefits to Third Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 16, 19, 21, 309 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Second Respondent to give compassionate appointment and release the death benefits of the deceased employee (Golla Vijaya Kumar) including family pension, gratuity, insurance to the Petitioner and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3) After considering the matter with reference to the averments made in the writ affidavit and the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition. 4) Learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner at the time of considering the matter had drawn the attention of this Court to the additional 3 affidavit dated 11.03.2025 and states that the appellant in fact after dismissal of the above writ petition filed a comprehensive suit in O.S.No.23 of 2024, on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, seeking to declare the plaintiffs therein are the legal heirs of the deceased Golla Vijaya Kumar and to direct the 2nd respondent-Adoni Municipality to disburse the death benefits, pension and other benefits of the deceased to the plaintiffs 1 to 3. He submits that the 3rd respondent herein is arrayed as 1st defendant in the said suit and she is contesting the matter by filing written statement. Be that as it may. He submits that the learned Judge while dismissing the above referred writ petition, however, while doing so declared that the 3rd respondent is the legal heir of the deceased Golla Vijaya Kumar and the said declaration is coming in the way of adjudication in OS NO.23 of 2024. He submits that under the said circumstances the appellant while restricting the challenge in the present Writ Appeal to the extent of learned Judge’s observation / declaration that the 3rd respondent herein is the legal heir of the deceased employee and seeks appropriate orders. 5) Considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. At the outset, it may be noted that though certain grounds have been raised assailing the order under challenge, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the additional affidavit dated 11.03.2025, this Court deems it not necessary to examine the matter in detail. So far as the relief sought for is concerned, the grievance of the appellant / writ petitioner appears to be inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent- 4 Commissioner in not considering the representations stated to have been made by the appellant-writ petitioner, as also apprehension that the 3rd respondent is likely to be appointed on compassionate basis etc., 6) The learned Judge while dismissing the writ petition for the reasons stated in the order, in the considered opinion of this Court, travelled beyond the scope of relief sought for and granted a declaration that the 3rd respondent is the legal heir of deceased Mr. Golla Vijaya Kumar, which is legally not sustainable, much less in the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. The said declaration of the learned Judge is accordingly set aside. 7) Further, as the suit is already instituted and is being contested by the 3rd respondent, the learned Trial Court shall decide the same without being influenced by any of the observations made in the order dated 19.12.2022 in W.P.No.18267 of 2021. 5) The Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. 6) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J ____________________________________________________ VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO,J Date:07.04.2025. ssv 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 753 OF 2023 Date:07.04.2025 ssv