Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 56192 (AP)

NAYAKULA SRAVANI v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/25179/2025 · 2025-10-05

Harinath N

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010446482025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 25179/2025 Between: 1. NAYAKULA SRAVANI, D/O. LATE NAYAKULA MEKELAIAH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O. 5-1-137, KOLLAPURAMMA GUDI RAYADURG, ANANTHAPUR ANDHRA PRADESH - 515865 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. ANANTHAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER ANANTHAPUR. ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SOCIETY FOR ELIMINATION OF RURAL POVERTY (SERP) 2ND FLOOR NTR ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK, PNBS, VIJAYAWADA, PIN CODE 520001 ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, MEDICAL AND FAMILY WELFARE SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. POTHAM VENGALA REDDY SC For M.Corporation in Rayalaseema region In 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: 3 Order:- The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner received notice dated 14.08.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent whereby it is informed that the physical disability of the petitioner was reassessed and that on such reassessment it was found that the physical disability was less than 40% and as such the petitioner would not be entitled for any Physically Handicapped Pension. It is submitted that the petitioner was issued the physical disability certificate with a disability of 50% by the Medical Board, CHC, Rayadurg. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, on written instructions, submits that the 2nd respondent would not have issued the impugned proceedings. However, it is submitted that the issue falls within the purview of Rayadurg Municipality and the petitioner also belongs to Rayadurg Municipality. That apart, it is submitted that the pension of the petitioner is credited to the account. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also does not dispute the crediting of the pension for the month of September and October as well. 4. Recording the same, this Writ Petition is closed, making it clear to the respondent authorities to credit the pension as the petitioner is eligible for and any further steps would have to be taken by following the due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. 5. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 06.10.2025 PNS 4