. 54 APHC010952172018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) TUESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF JULY ^ (|o P i 1'! TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE W /i PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAP^ WRIT PETITION NO: 46049 OF 2018 Between: U.Bhagyalakshmi @ Bhagyamma, W/o late U.Krishnama Raju, aged about 62 years, R/o 1-440-B, Alwyn Colony, Penukonda, Ananthapuram District ...Petitioner^ AND 1. A P Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd, rep. by its Managing Director, Tirupathi, Chittoor. 2. The Superintending Engineer Operation, A.P.Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Ananthapuramu. 3. The Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operations, A.P.Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Hindupur, Ananthapuram District. 4. Sugunamma, R/o D.No.2-216-E, Sai Nagar, Puttaparthy, Ananthapuram District ...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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in proposing to disburse the pension to the 4th respondent payable in respect of the deceased pensioner Sri U.Krishnam Raju, the husband of the petitioner, as illegal, discrimination and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the one r Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to disburse the pension to the petitioner, being the legally wedded wife of the deceased Sri U.Krishnam Raju. ^ lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to disburse the pension to the 4th respondent payable in respect of the deceased pensioner Sri U.Krishnam Raju, the husband of the petitioner pending disposal of writ petition.-- Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI R SUJAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3: SRI VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA (SC FOR APSPDCL) Counsel for the Respondent No.4:— The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010952172018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT the honourable dr. justice VENKATA JYOTHiRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 46049/2018 / Between: 1.U.BHAGYALAKSHMI @ BHAGYAMMA,, W/0 LATE U.KRISHNAMA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/0 1-440-B, ALWYN COLONY, PENUKONDA, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1.A P SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR. 2.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER OPERATION, A.P.SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD., ANANTHAPURAMU. 3.THE DIVISIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, OPERATIONS, A.P.SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD., HINDUPUR, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 4.SUGUNAMMA, R/0 D.N0.2-216-E, SAI NAGAR, PUTTAPARTHY, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.RSUJAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 .VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “....a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in proposing to disburse the pension to the 4th respondent payable In respect of the deceased pensioner Sri U.Krishnam Raju, the husband of the petitioner, as illegal, discrimination and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution 'of India and consequently direct ✓ 2 the respondents 1 to 3 to disburse the pension to the petitioner, being the legally wedded wife of the deceased Sri U.KrIshnam Raju." Heard Ms.S.Lakshmi Prameela, learned counsel R.Sujan Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Venkata Kota, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL. 2. representing Sri Rama Rao \ 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that this seeking a direction not to disburse the petition is filed pension amount to Respondent No.4 relating to the deceased pensioner Sri U Krishnam Raju, who is the husband of the Petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner herself filed Succession O.P before the Court Penukonda. of Senior Civil Judge, 4. Learned Standing Counsel, on written instructions received from the Executive Engineer, Operations, APSPDCL, Hindupur deceased Krishnam Raju retired would submit that the as a Lineman in the Respondent - Corporation. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that, after his superannuation, pension was sanctioned to said Krishnam Raju received the pension till 30.08.2015.' After his death, the Petitioner and he as well as Respondent No.4 approached the office, claiming ^that they are the legally wedded wives of the deceased. They were asked to produce the Succession Certificate. Now Respondent No.4 has submitted the documents, for sanction of pension, including the Succession Certificate grarited by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda. Accordingly, family Respondent No.4 on 11.01.2017. pension was sanctioned to Learned Standing Counsel would further 3 submit that, no purpose would be since the Succession Certificate served by keeping this petition pending was granted in favour of Respondent No.4 and family pension was also sanctioned to her in the year 2017 and hence, the petition may be disposed of. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, in reply, would submit that, recording the same, the petition may be disposed of without causing any prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Petitioner regarding her claim as wife of the deceased. 6. Considering the submissions and a keen perusal of the material record, as rightly put by the learned Standing Counsel, as Respondent No.4 has submitted Succession Certificate, which was granted by the competent Court in her favour and family pension was also sanctioned to her even in the year 2017 i.e., prior to filing of the present writ petition, this Court is of the view that, no purpose would be served by keeping this petition pending. 7. In that view, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to work out her rernedies before appropriate Court, order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand on There shall be no closed. Sd/- M. RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to SRI. R. SUJAN KUMAR, 2. One CC to SRI. VENKATA RAMA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies Advocate [OPUC] — - KOTA (SC FOR APSPDCLK NM high court DATED:01/07/2025 \ ORDER WP 46049/2018 a 0 MUG 2025 « y-s?' VjTsCiirrent Sectioax^'^ dismissing the WP WITHOUT COSTS