APHC010045802026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 2733/2026 Between: 1. GOWDU APPA RAO, S/O. LATCHAYYA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURAL COOLIE, PENSION ID.NO.10100016417, R/O. NAGIRIPENTA VILLAGE SANTHABOMMALI GRAM PANCHAYAT AND MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 532195 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P - 522238. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, A.P - 532001. 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (DRDA), VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P - 520001. 4. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(DRDA), SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, A.P - 532001. Page 2 of 7 SRS,J W.P.No.2733 of 2026 5. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, SOCIETY FOR ELIMINATION OF RURAL POVERTY(SERP), SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, A.P - 532001. 6. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SANTHABOMMALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, A.P - 532195. 7. SANTHABOMMALI GRAM PANCHAYAT, , REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY. NAGIRIPENTA VILLAGE, SANTHABOMMALI GRAM PANCHAYAT AND MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, A.P - 532195 ...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 of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declare the action of the respondents in discontinuing the pension to the petitioner and without issuing any notice and without giving an opportunity of hearing as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to distribute arrears of pension to the petitioner from where to stopped the pension and continue to pay the pension to the petitioner thereafter and pass such 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 may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the social security pension to the petitioner from March 2025 onwards to till today, pending disposal of writ petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K BHEEMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV p. 3 SRS,J W.P.No.2733 of 2026 The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: Heard Sri K. Bheema Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, for respondents 1 and 2; Sri Hari Babu, learned standing counsel for respondents 3 to 5 and Ms.Ch. Annapurna, learned counsel representing Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned standing counsel for respondents 6 and 7. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of respondent No.6 in discontinuing pension payable to the petitioner, without issuing any notice or affording an opportunity of hearing, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner permanent resident of Nagiripenta Village, Santhabommali Gram Panchayat and Mandal, Srikakulam, and eking out his livelihood as an agricultural coolie, was selected as an eligible beneficiary under ‘YSR Pension Kanuka’. The petitioner received the pension till February, 2025. Thereafter, the pension was stopped without issuing any notice. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner filed a letter dated 07.04.2025 before respondent No.2, who, in turn, communicated through a letter dated 29.04.2025 about a complaint lodged by one of the villagers alleging that the petitioner’s son is an employee, working as Gunman in District Armed Forces and hence, the petitioner is not eligible for pension, under the scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is eligible under the scheme. However, without adhering to the procedure prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.174 dated 13.12.2019, respondent No.6 stopped paying pension to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, Sri Hari Babu, learned standing counsel, on instructions would submit that acting on the complaint made by some of the residents of p. 4 SRS,J W.P.No.2733 of 2026 Nagiripenta Village, on 28.02.2025, alleging that the petitioner’s son is a government employee and hence, the petitioner is not eligible to receive pension under the scheme, the Extension Officer, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development conducted inquiry on 15.03.2025, in which the petitioner participated. After inquiry, the Extension Officer, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, submitted a report on 20.03.2025, and thereafter, respondent No.6 issued notice vide L.R.No.23/2025 dated 25.04.2025 to the petitioner, stopping pension temporarily. The petitioner received the same and affixed his thumb impression. Learned standing counsel would submit that since the petitioner’s son has been working as a government employee, the petitioner is not eligible for the pension under the scheme. He would contend that the respondent authority followed the procedure. 5. As per the averments in the writ affidavit, the pension of the petitioner was stopped from March, 2025, without conducting an inquiry. However, the above writ petition was filed on 29.01.2026. 6. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.174, dated 13.12.2019, wherein revised guidelines were framed for sanction of pension under the YSR Pension Kanuka scheme, in supersession of earlier guidelines. As per G.O. the eligibility criteria for sanction of pensions is as follows: 1. Common eligibility for all categories of pensions: a. Total family income should be less than Rs.10000/- per month in Rural areas and Rs.12,000/- per month in Urban areas. b. … c. … d. … e. No family member should be Government employee or Pensioner. ...” p. 5 SRS,J W.P.No.2733 of 2026 7. No doubt, in the implementation of welfare and developmental programmes, the Government of Andhra Pradesh introduced the pension scheme as a social security measure and has been implementing various pension schemes for needy, poor and vulnerable sections of the society, to provide them some succour. In fact, the quantum of pension is being enhanced from time to time. Keeping in view the poverty conditions in the society, the Government intended to provide social security pension schemes to all the eligible. 8. As per the eligibility criteria as noted supra, one of the conditions is that no family member should be a government employee or a pensioner. 9. In the case at hand, the petitioner’s pension was stopped on the ground of that his son is employed as a gunman in the District Armed Forces, and the petitioner has not disputed his son’s employment. The petitioner, as per the scheme of the aforementioned G.O., is not eligible to get the pension. However, the petitioner was extended the benefit under the scheme. When the villagers made a complaint on 28.02.2025, the Extension Officer, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, MPDO, Santhabommali, conducted an inquiry at the Village Secretariat on 15.03.2025, by issuing notice. In fact, the petitioner attended the inquiry on 15.03.2025. Thereafter, the Extension Officer submitted a report, dated 20.03.2025. Considering the report and other aspects, respondent No.6 issued notice vide L.R.No.23/2025 dated 25.04.2025, stopping the pension temporarily. Though the petitioner received such communication, he filed the writ petition, without annexing the same, as if no inquiry was conducted. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was discriminated. In fact, as pointed out supra, the petitioner is not eligible to get a pension as per the criteria fixed in G.O.Ms.No.174. 10. Sri Hari Babu, learned standing counsel, handed over a copy of the instructions, furnished by the Project Director, DRDA, to the learned counsel p. 6 SRS,J W.P.No.2733 of 2026 for the petitioner across the bar, on 09.02.2026 and learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to verify the same. 11. Today, when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the petitioner’s son is an employee. However, no notice was issued to the petitioner before stopping the pension temporarily. 12. As pointed out supra, the notice was issued to the petitioner, and he, in fact, participated in the inquiry, pursuant to which the pension was stopped. 13. Given the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the action of the respondents. Hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 17.02.2026 IKN p. 7 SRS,J W.P.No.2733 of 2026 286 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 2733 of 2026 Date: 17.02.2026 IKN