P a g e | 1 APHC010378612023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 6th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 19860 OF 2023 Between: 1. YARRAMSETTI TEJASRI, D/o. Yarramsetti Nagamani, Hindu, Aged 37 years, R/o. Door No. 12/64, Scavengers colony, Gowrishankara Puram, Gudivada, Krishna District ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Regional Director, Municipal Administration, Rajahmundry., East Godavari District. 3. The Commissioner, Gudivada Municipality, Gudivada, Krishna District 4. The Special Officer, Gudivada Municipal Council, Gudivada. ...Respondents 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 topleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the endorsement dated 10.04.2023 of 3rd Respondent bearing R.O.C.No.497/2023/F1, declining Compassionate P a g e | 2 appointment to the Petitioner, further endorsement of 3rd Respondent Vide R.O.C.No.627/2023/F1 dated 15.03.2023 demanding the Petitioner to produce Legal heir certificate who being the adopted daughter of Yarramsetti Nagamani who died in harness as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, G.O.Ms.No.612 General Administration (Services-A) Department dt.30.10.1991 and the principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner in a suitable post on compassionate grounds being eligible to be considered for the post as well as eligible for all benefits oS deceased Yarramsetti Nagamani and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: KARTHIK SHAH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES IV Counsel for the Respondents:SIREESHA RANI VALLABHANENI SC For MUNICIPALITIES Counsel for the Respondents:M MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP ) P a g e | 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI W.P.No.19860 of 2023 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the endorsement dated 10.04.2023 of 3rd Respondent bearing R.O.C.No.497/2023/F1, declining Compassionate appointment to the Petitioner, further endorsement of 3rd Respondent Vide R.O.C.No.627/2023/F1 dated 15.03.2023 demanding the Petitioner to produce Legal heir certificate who being the adopted daughter of Yarramsetti Nagamani who died in harness as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, G.O.Ms.No.612 General Administration (Services-A) Department dt.30.10.1991 and the principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner in a suitable post on compassionate grounds being eligible to be considered for the post as well as eligible for all benefits of deceased Yarramsetti Nagamani…” 2. The brief facts of the case are that: Petitioner is the biological daughter of Smt. Yerramsetti Vijaya Kumari alias Pagolu Vijaya Kumari, who is the sister of Yerramsetti Nagamani. Petitioner was given in adoption to the said Yerramsetti Nagamani on 12.06.1991, when she was four years old. The said Yerramsetti Nagamani died while in service as a Worker in the Public Health Department of Gudivada Municipality, leaving the petitioner as her sole legal heir. After the demise of her adoptive mother, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 23.02.2023 to the 3rd respondent seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, claiming to be the dependent of the deceased Yerramsetti P a g e | 4 Nagamani, and also requested payment of the terminal benefits payable to the deceased in her favour. The 3rd respondent, however, rejected the petitioner's request for appointment on compassionate grounds on the ground that the adoption deed dated 12.06.1991 was not a legally valid document in terms of G.O.Ms.No.612, dated 30.10.1991. The 3rd respondent also issued another endorsement dated 15.03.2023, calling upon the petitioner to submit a legal heir certificate from the competent Court for consideration of her request for release of the death benefits of her deceased adoptive mother - Yerramsetti Nagamani. 3. Aggrieved by the above said proceedings, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as per Clause 2(ii) of the G.O.Ms.No.612, dated 30.10.1991, an adopted son or daughter of the deceased Government Servant may be considered for appointment, if the adoption had taken place legally, at least five years prior to the demise of the Government Servant. In the instant case, the adoption deed was executed on 12.06.1991 on a stamp paper of Rs.50/- and was duly signed by the witnesses, who were community elders. Since the petitioner was adopted in the year 1991 and her adoptive mother died on 03.02.2022, the adoption had taken place more than three decades prior to the demise of the deceased P a g e | 5 Government servant and, therefore, was much prior to her death. However, the 3rd respondent, by endorsement dated 10.04.2023, rejected the petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate grounds on the ground that the adoption deed was not registered and, therefore, could not be treated as a legally valid document. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment in V. Anjaneyulu v. Vadapalli Peddanna1, wherein the relevant portion reads as under: “6. As observed earlier, the document refers to adoption of the petitioner by respondents 1 and 2, on the one hand, and settlement of the properties held by them in favour of their adopted son and their natural daughter, on the other. There is no dispute that the prayer in the suit is limited to the one of declaration of the status of the petitioner as the adopted son of respondents 1 and 2. The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short „the Act‟) deals with various aspects of adoption, by Hindu parents. The Act does not insist that adoption of a child shall be only through a registered document. Section 16 of the Act provides an indication that registration is not compulsory. According to this, where the adoption is through a registered document and it is signed by the persons giving and taking the child, in adoption, the Court shall presume that the adoption has been made in accordance with the provisions of the Act, till the same is disproved. In other words, it provides for rebuttable presumption, where the adoption is witnessed by a registered deed. It naturally follows that an adoption does not become invalid, on the sole ground that it is not witnessed by a registered document.” 7. Placing reliance on the above judgment, learned counsel submitted that though G.O.Ms.No.612, dated 30.10.1991 prescribes for a legally valid adoption, this Court while considering the said aspect, held that the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 does not insist adoption of a child shall 1 2005 SCC OnLine AP 455 P a g e | 6 be only through a registered document. Section 16 of the Act provides an indication that registration is not compulsory. It is further submitted that, where the adoption is through a registered document and it is signed by the persons giving and taking the child, in adoption, the Court shall presume that the adoption has been made in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. In other words, it provides for rebuttable presumption, where the adoption is witnessed by a registered deed. In the instant case, no such rebuttable evidence is forthcoming and no counter claim is coming forth in respect of the candidate seeking employment or for payment of death benefits of the deceased employee. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in State of A.P. v. Ramesh Kumar 2 , wherein the relevant portion reads as under: 13. In the instant case, the husband of Smt. Ch. Rajarajeswari, pre-deceased her in the year 1991. Admittedly, it is not the case of the petitioners herein, that there is contravention of any one of the aforesaid provisions of law. The only objection taken by the petitioners is that the case of the applicant/respondent herein would not fall within the parameters of G.O.Ms. No. 612, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 30.10.1991. For justifying the said contention, the petitioners herein seek to rely upon the registered adoption deed dated 07.1.2013, which admittedly came to be registered on the said date, which was obviously just before the death of the Smt. Ch. Rajarajeswari. 14. On the other hand, the categoric plea of the respondent/applicant is that at the age of 6 years, he was given in adoption to the deceased, Smt. Ch. Rajarajeswari, by way of an unregistered adoption deed dated 15.11.1996. Clause (2)(ii) of G.O.Ms. No. 612, General Administration (Services-A) 2 2022 SCC OnLine AP 702 P a g e | 7 Department, dated 30.10.1991, stipulates that the adopted son or daughter of the deceased Government Servants may be considered for appointment, if the adoption had taken place legally, atleast 5 years prior to the date of demise of the Government servant. The Tribunal had taken into consideration the unregistered adoption deed dated 15.11.1996 and also specifically observed about the date of purchase of the Stamp as 14.11.1996. The Tribunal also took into consideration the principle laid down in the case of V. Anjaneyulu v. Vadapalli Peddanna1, about the registration of the adoption deed. The Tribunal also recorded a finding, that the execution of unregistered adoption deed dated 15.11.1996 was not disputed. 15. In the considered opinion of this Court, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error and patent perversity in the said order. It is a settled and well established principle of law, that invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari is impermissible, unless the order impugned suffers from jurisdictional error, patent perversity or passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 9. Placing reliance on the above said judgment, learned counsel submits that the same principle was also followed by the Tribunal by following the ratio laid down by this Court in V. Anjaneyulu v. Vadapalli Peddanna (cited supra), and the same was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in the above said judgment. 10. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 reiterated the contentions raised in the counter-affidavit and submitted that, as the adoption deed was not legally registered, the petitioner is not entitled to seek appointment on compassionate grounds. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is also not entitled to the release of death benefits in her favour, as she has produced only a family member certificate and has not produced legal heir certificate issued by the competent P a g e | 8 Court and no nominee is also mentioned in the service register of the deceased Government servant and, therefore, the adoption claimed by the petitioner, as well as the family member certificate relied upon by her, cannot be accepted. 11. Considered the above submissions made on either side and perused the material on record. As stated above, the adoption deed relied upon by the petitioner is of the year 1991, and the relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The petitioner, being the daughter of the sister of the deceased, was taken in adoption as long back as in the year 1991. The stamp paper (Rs.50) on which the adoption deed was executed was also purchased on the same day, and the deed bears the signatures of the witnesses. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the adoption was effected in the presence of the community elders. As per the above said judicial pronouncements relied upon by the petitioner, the adoption deed need not be a compulsorily registrable document under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. As such, the respondent authorities cannot reject the claim of the petitioner for compassionate grounds solely on the ground that adoption deed was not registered. Further, it is not the case of the respondents that there is any counter-claim by any third party either with regard to the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment or with regard to the terminal benefits of the deceased adoptive mother of the petitioner. P a g e | 9 12. In such circumstances, withholding the death benefits of the deceased adoptive mother of the petitioner and rejecting the petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate grounds, solely on the ground that the adoption deed was not registered is highly arbitrary and unsustainable. 13. In view of the foregoing reasons, the impugned endorsements dated 10.04.2023 and 15.03.2023 issued by the 3rd respondent are hereby set aside. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of G.O.Ms.No.612, dated 30.10.1991, and also settle the death benefits of the petitioner’s deceased adoptive mother in favour of the petitioner, within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 06.08.2026 Dvs P a g e | 10 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI 154 W.P.No.19860 of 2023 Dt: 06.08.2026 Dvs