APHC010061022026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 3514/2026 Between: 1. BATHULA SRIKANTH, S/O DASARADHA RAMAIAH, AGED 46 YEARS, MENTALLY RETARD PERSON, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO.5- 72 G-2, TIP TOP TOWERS, VENKATESWARA NAGAR, 0PP. POWER OFFICE, KURNOOL ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-523002 (BEING INTELLECTUAL DISABLE PERSON). 2. BATHULA DASARADAHA RAMAIAH,, REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN HISSON BATHULA SRIKANTH, AGED 77 YEARS. RETIRED EMPLOYEE (NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD), RESIDENT OF DOOR NO.5-72 G-2, TIP TOP TOWERS, VENKATESWARA NAGAR, 0PP. POWER OFFICE, KURNOOL ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 523002 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTURU DISTRICT, AP-522232. 2. THE SOCIETY FOR ELIMINATION OF RURAL POVERTY SERP, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 2ND FLOOR NTR ADMINISTRATIVE BLOCK, PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, AP- 520013. 2 3. THE ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER AT ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 523001. 4. THE DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DRDASERP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR, DRDA-SERP AT ONGOLE, PRAKASAMDISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 523001 ...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 Order or direction particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.3/Municipal Commissioner, Ongole is cancelling or stop my son Mental Retard Pension without issuing any prior notice and without following the procedure as established by law, merely basing on the report of the neighbor as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and also Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to consider the representation dated 03.10.2025 submitted by the 2nd respondent by directing the 3rd respondent to restore the pension as well as pay the arrears to the 1st petitioner forthwith and to pass 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 to direct the respondents, more particularly, 3rd respondent to consider the representation dated 03.10.2025 submitted by the 2ndpetitioner by directing the 3rd respondent to restore the pension as well as pay the arrears to the 1st petitioner forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) The Court made the following: 3 :: ORDER :: Heard Sri S.Rajasekhar, learned counsel representing Sri V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development for the 1st respondent, Sri Hari Babu, learned Standing counsel for the respondents 2 and 4 and Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing counsel for the 3rd respondent. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in cancelling the pension to the 1st petitioner, without issuing any notice, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 1st petitioner is the son of the 2nd petitioner. The 1st petitioner is suffering from “Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy”, and the said disease is incurable in nature. The 1st petitioner received Mental Retardation Pension from 25.09.2016 till 01.07.2025. However, the 3rd respondent, without conducting any inquiry, stopped the pension from 01.07.2025. 4. Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing counsel for the 3rd respondent, submitted the written instructions of the Commissioner of the 3rd respondent. Learned counsel would contend that the 2nd petitioner, who is the father of the 1st petitioner, joined service in New India Assurance Company Limited on 01.08.1979 and superannuated on 31.05.2009. The 2nd petitioner has been receiving a pension from the date of retirement to the present. The 2nd petitioner gave a written statement to the staff of the 3rd respondent that he 4 was not getting any pension from the New India Assurance Company Limited. Based on the submission of the 2nd petitioner, the 1st petitioner was provided pension. The 3rd respondent, in fact, got information from the Regional Office of the New India Assurance Company Limited on 02.02.2026 that the 2nd petitioner has been getting pension and hence the 1st petitioner is not entitled to the pension under the scheme. However, learned counsel would fairly submit that no inquiry was conducted by the 3rd respondent in this regard. 5. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.174 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (RD.I) Department, dated 13.12.2019, prescribing revised guidelines for sanction of pension under the YSR Pension Kanuka Scheme in supersession of the earlier guidelines. One of the conditions, as per the eligibility criteria, is that no family member should be a Government employee or pensioner. 6. In the case at hand, admittedly, no inquiry was conducted by the 3rd respondent in pursuance of the letter dated 02.02.2026, received from the New India Assurance Company Limited. The 3rd respondent ought to have been issued a notice to the petitioner and conducted an inquiry before stopping the pension, in consonance with the Principles of Natural Justice. Since the said procedure was not followed, stopping the pension to the 1st petitioner requires reconsideration. 7. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of at the state of admission, with the consent of all the learned 5 counsel, directing the 3rd respondent to issue notice to the petitioners within one week from today, fixing a date for inquiry. The petitioners shall attend the inquiry and submit all the requisite documents. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent shall pass a reasoned order within two weeks. If the 1st petitioner is found eligible for pension based on the order, the respondents 2 to 4 shall ensure the pension payable in terms of G.O.Ms.No.174, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (RD.I) Department dated 13.12.2019, and G.O.Ms.No.43, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (RD.I) Department dated 13.06.2024. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 18.02.2026 SNI 6 111 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 3514 OF 2026 Date: 18.02.2026 SNI