Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 14.07.2026 Date of uploading :22.07.2026 APHC010085042023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3573] TUESDAY, THE 14th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 4339/2023 Between: 1. BOBBILI NAGA DURGA, S/O (LATE) SRI BOBBILI RAMA RAO, PUBLIC HEALTH WORKER (TERMINATED), GUNTUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO.15-18-76 MARUTHI NAGAR, OLD GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT OF A.P., VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE GUNTUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONERII, GUNTUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GUNTUR. 4. THE CHIEF MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER, GUNTUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 1. T V SRI DEVI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES IV 2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 4339/2023 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings in Roc.No.501709/2020/C1 dated 14.02.2023 issued by the 2nd respondent, whereby the petitioner, who was appointed as a Public Health Worker on compassionate grounds, was terminated on the ground that the father of the petitioner was a pensioner who was retired from service in Guntur Municipal Corporation. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the mother of the petitioner, while working as a Public Health Worker in the Guntur Municipal Corporation, died on 05.05.2020, leaving behind the petitioner as her only son. In view of the family conditions and also after considering the unemployment of the petitioner, the respondent - Corporation appointed the petitioner on compassionate grounds vide proceedings in Roc.No. 501709/2020/C1 dated 15.11.2020 as Public Health Worker. Subsequently, based on a complaint received from one Mr. Bangaru Anjaneya Prasad alleging that the father of the petitioner is a pensioner, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. After considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the services of the petitioner were terminated by placing reliance on Circular Memo No.3548/Ser.G/A2/ 2010-8, dated 24.03.2012, which stipulates that where one 4 of the parents of an applicant is in receipt of a service pension, the dependent child would not be entitled for compassionate appointment. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in W.P.No.34079 of 2022, wherein the similar issue was fell for consideration before a Coordinate Bench of this court and held as follows: 14. The fact is that the Circular Memo No.3548/Ser.G/A2/2010-8, dated 24.03.2012 expressly stood set aside by the Hon‟ble Tribunal vide Order dated 20.02.2018 (Ex.P.10). The relevant portion of the Order of the Hon‟ble Tribunal is usefully extracted hereunder: “8. A perusal of the above observations of the Apex Court would clearly show that the object of providing compassionate appointment and the purpose sought to be achieved through the same is only to provide livelihood, but it is not a kind of recruitment. It was never the case of the respondents that family members of an employee died in harness, will be provided with compassionate appointment and that they will not be provided with any family pension. Further, as per the scheme cited by the respondents in G.O.Ms.No.687, dated 03.10.1977, the first and foremost condition for providing compassionate appointment is that there will be no other earning member in the family. In the case on hand, the applicant‟s father is a pensioner and also receiving family pension. With regard to this aspect, this court has already held that a pensioner cannot be treated as earning member, because, the pension is a component paid by the employer for the services rendered by the employee in order to sustenance after retirement and therefore, a pensioner cannot be treated as an earning member of the family. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the applicant‟s father is a pensioner and thereby, the applicant is not entitled for compassionate appointment cannot be accepted. Nowhere in the scheme of compassionate appointment, there is a condition that the compassionate appointment will be provided to those family members, who are not in receipt of family pension. Therefore, the ground taken by the respondents in denying the applicant compassionate appointment on the ground that his father is a 5 pensioner and receiving family pension is totally untenable and defeats the very object of providing compassionate appointment. Therefore, the Circular Memo No.3548/Ser.G/A2/2010-8, dated 24.03.2012 to the effect that pension is an earning and pensioner is to be treated as an earning member, to deny very consideration of himself or his family members for appointment under the scheme of compassionate grounds, is liable to be declared as illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the Circular Memo No.3548/Ser.G/A2/2010- 8, dated 24.03.2012 issued by the 3rd respondent and the order in Rc.No.A4/162/2013, dated 11.07.2013 issued by the 1st respondent, rejecting the case of the applicant in O.A.No.3012/2015 are set aside.” (emphasis supplied) 5. As the above said Circular Memo dated 24.03.2012 was struck down by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.3012 of 2015 vide order dated 20.02.2018, and as the said view has been consistently followed in several decisions of this Court, the same has attained finality. Thus, the Circular Memo rendered unenforceable. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a similar issue was fell for consideration in W.P.No.20266 of 2021, wherein this Court, placing reliance on the judgment in W.P.No.27465 of 2017, held that mere receipt of the family pension by wife of the deceased would not disentitle an applicant from seeking compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the order of rejection therein was set aside, directing the 4th respondent therein to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on another judgment of this Court in W.P.No.9553 of 2021, whereby this Court held that 6 drawing family pension is not a ground for rejection of compassionate appointment by following the view expressed in W.A.No.700 of 2018 dated 29.11.2018. 8. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, and the catena of judgments relied upon by the petitioner, the impugned order dated 14.02.2023 vide Roc.No.501709/2020/C1 is hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 14.07.2026 Dvs Whether the order is: Speaking ☑ Reasoned ☑ Reportable Non-reportable ☑ 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI 147 WRIT PETITION NO: 4339/2023 Dt: 14.07.2026 Dvs