APHC010054892026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 3277/2026 Between: 1. B ESWARAMMA ALIAS CHITTEMMA, W/O. B. CHENCHAIAH @ CHINNA CHENCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. D. NO. 10-70-4/B, RAYAL NAGAR, M.R. PALLI VILLAGE, TIRUPATI URBAN, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, (PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION) A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 522237 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT 522001 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE GUNTUR MUNICIPALITY, GUNTUR 522001 ...RESPONDENT(S): The Court made the following ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue an appropriate Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 3 in not considering the claim of the petitioner through application dated 22.12.2025 and 07.12.2020 for providing the retirement benefits along with other departmental benefits of the petitioner’s husband in favour of petitioner’s family is as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the guidelines prescribed in Service Rules and consequently direct the respondent to take necessary steps in releasing the of Retirement benefit, pensionery benefits and other benefits of the husband of the petitioner in favour of petitioners family by duly considering the application submitted by the petitioner dated 22.12.2025 and 07.12.2020 and to pass….” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the 3rd respondent in not considering the claim of the petitioner made through applications dated 07.12.2020 and 22.12.2025 seeking release of the retirement benefits and other departmental benefits of her deceased husband in favour of the petitioner’s family, which action is alleged to be illegal and arbitrary. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has placed before this Court the written instructions dated 19.02.2026 issued by the Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Guntur. As per the said instructions, it is stated that even prior to his retirement, the deceased employee had submitted an application dated 15.03.2025 indicating certain family members and other parties as claimants. It is further stated that certain certificates have also been produced showing the name of Smt. B. Eswaramma as a claimant. In addition thereto, a separate claim petition has been submitted by one B. Swathi, daughter of B. Chinna Chenchaiah, claiming to be the legal heir of the deceased employee. 5. In view of the rival claims made by different persons claiming to be the legal heirs of the deceased employee, the respondents have expressed their inability to release the pensionary benefits in favour of any particular claimant. It is further stated that under Rule 9(1) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, the Government is empowered to withhold or withdraw pension or gratuity only in cases where a pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during service, or in cases of bigamy, and such finding must be based on a judicial conviction or departmental proceedings. However, in the present case, there are multiple claimants asserting entitlement to the pensionary benefits, and none of the claimants, including the petitioner, has produced any appropriate documentary proof or declaration from a competent Civil Court establishing their exclusive legal entitlement to receive the said benefits. In such circumstances, the respondents have submitted that they are ready to release the pensionary benefits once the competent Civil Court determines the rightful legal heirs entitled to receive the same. 6. Having regard to the above circumstances, and as the matter involves disputed questions of fact relating to the legal heirship and entitlement of the claimants, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court for appropriate relief. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE D RAMESH 25.02.2026 klk 187 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 3277/2026 25.02.2026 klk