APHC010160592026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 8437/2026 Between: 1. B. SASHIKALAVATHI, W/O LATE SHIVA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O 14- 120-B, DALAVAI AGRAHARAM, SATYAVEDU, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH -517588 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 522503 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 522503 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, 517502 4. THE DISTRICT AUDIT OFFICER, , STATE AUDIT , TIRUPATI DISTRICT TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH 517502 ...RESPONDENT(S): The Court made the following ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the Endorsement dated 13.02.2026 issued by the 3rd Respondent and the proceedings dated 03.01.2026 issued by the 4th Respondent, whereby the claim of the petitioner for family pension was rejected on the ground that, as per G.O.Ms.No.152, dated 25.11.2019 issued by the 2nd Respondent, family pension to a widowed daughter is payable only up to the date on which her children attain majority, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the application made by the petitioner based on G.O.Ms.No.152, dated 25.11.2019 and G.O.Ms.No.315, dated 07.10.2010 issued by the 2nd respondent is unsustainable in law. In fact, the respondents have considered and rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has crossed 45 years of age. It is further submitted that the said issue has already been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.19671 of 2020 and batch, wherein it was held that without making any amendments to the rules, more particularly the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, the instructions issued in the above Government Orders cannot restrict the entitlement of family pension. The Coordinate Bench further held that such instructions are violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and accordingly directed the respondents to pay family pension under Category-II to the petitioners therein within a period of four (04) weeks. 4. The learned counsel further submits that once the said Government Orders were declared illegal, the respondents cannot once again decide the application of the petitioner by relying upon the very same instructions. 5. Considering the above submissions and upon perusal of the orders passed by this Court in the batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.19671 of 2020 and also in W.P.No.27535 of 2021, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to similar relief. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned Endorsement dated 13.02.2026 issued by the 3rd Respondent. The respondents are directed to grant and pay family pension to the petitioner under Category-II, and the said exercise shall be completed within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE D RAMESH 10.04.2026 klk 176 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 8437/2026 10.04.2026 klk