(Prayer: 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 be pleased to issue a Writ, or any other appropriate Direction or Order more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents more particularly the Respondent No. 4 recommending the Respondent No. 3 to cancel the pensions to the Petitioners vide his letter bearing No. 34/2024/A dated 15.10.2024 as discriminatory, illegal, arbitrary and against rules governing distribution of pensions guidelines as framed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh from time to time, against principles of natural justice and nothing but infringement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and accordingly set aside the said letter bearing No. 34/2024/A dated 15-10-2024 and consequential actions and direct all Respondents to pay/distribute arrears of pension to the Petitioners from November 2024 and continue to pay the pension to them thereafter and to pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. The Prayer is amended as per Courts Order dt.17.02.2026 in I.A.No.1 of 2026

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

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 may be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay the pension to the Petitioners without any delay every month along with other pensioners as per the guidelines issued by the Government from time to time and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

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 May be pleased to grant leave to the Petitioner/Respondent No.3 herein to file the affidavit filed by the respondents in WP No.27350 of 2024 in the interest of Justice and 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 may be pleased to amend the old main prayer with new main prayer in the writ petition as follows: OLD MAIN PRAYER To issue a Writ, or any other appropriate Direction or Order more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in discontinuing pensions to the Petitioners as discriminatory, illegal, arbitrary and against rules governing distribution of pensions guidelines as framed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh from time to time and nothing but infringement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and direct all Respondents to pay/distribute arrears of pension to the Petitioners from November 2024 and continue to pay the pension to them thereafter and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. AMENDED NEW MAIN PRAYER To issue a Writ, or any other appropriate Direction or Order more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents more particularly the Respondent No. 4 recommending the Respondent No. 3 to cancel the pensions to the Petitioners vide his letter bearing No. 34/2024/A dated 15-10- 2024 as discriminatory, illegal, arbitrary and against rules governing distribution of pensions guidelines as framed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh from time to time, against principles of natural justice and nothing but infringement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and accordingly set aside the said letter bearing No. 34/2024/A dated 15-10-2024 and consequential actions and direct all Respondents to pay/distribute arrears of pension to the Petitioners from November 2024 and continue to pay the pension to them thereafter and to pass)

1. Petitioners, five in number, filed the above writ petition assailing the recommendation made by respondent No.4 to respondent No.3 vide letter No.34/2024/A dated 15.10.2024, to cancel the pensions, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Initially, the petitioners filed the above writ petition challenging the action of the respondents in discontinuing pensions to the petitioners. Pending the writ petition, the petitioners filed I.A.No.1 of 2026 seeking an amendment of the prayer. The I.A. was allowed on 17.02.2026.

3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, as set out in the affidavit, is that petitioner No.1 is a disabled person suffering with 62% disability; petitioners 2 and 4 are widows; and petitioners 3 and 5 are single women. All the petitioners are residents of Masakhapuram Village, Ichapuram Mandal, Srikakulam District, and they have been receiving the pension.

4. Be that as it may, the member of Legislative Assembly addressed a letter vide No.173/2024/MLA/Ichapuram dated 14.08.2024 (Ex.P6) to the Project Director, respondent No.3, intimating the authority that the petitioners are ineligible to get pension and directed respondent No.3 to enquire into and initiate necessary action regarding the stoppage of pensions. In pursuance of the same, respondent No.4 issued notices vide R.C.No.18/2024/A dated 27.08.2024 (Ex.P7) to the petitioners calling upon them to attend office on 30.08.2024 and submit necessary documents. The petitioners attended the office of respondent No.4 and submitted the necessary documents. Thereafter, the petitioners received the pension for September and October, 2024. However, pensions were stopped from 01.11.2024. When the petitioners enquired, the respondents did not reveal valid reasons. Hence, the writ petition.

5. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.3. It was contended, inter alia, that the role of the Project Director, respondent No.3, is to supervise and administer the pension scheme at the district levels. All the field-level online logins are provided to MPDO, and the MPDO is the sanctioning or cancelling authority of pension in the rural areas.

                  ii) The Sarpach of Masakapuram village and villagers gave a complaint on 09.09.2024 to respondent No.3 and requested the authority to cancel pensions to the petitioners as they belong to Odisha State and are getting pensions under “single woman‟ status illegally. Respondent No.4, MPDO issued notices, dated 27.08.2024, to the petitioners and directed them to attend the office on 30.08.2024 along with the documents. The petitioners attended the office of MPDO and submitted the documents.

                  iii) The MPDO, respondent No.4, in turn, communicated a letter to the Tahsildar, Ichapuram, for verifying the documents submitted by the petitioners. The Tahsildar, Ichapuram, after verification, issued proceedings vide R.C.No.143/2024, dated 30.09.2024, recommending cancellation pensions to the petitioners. Eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Respondent No.4 filed a separate counter affidavit with similar averments made in the counter affidavit of respondent No.3. In precise terms, the counter affidavit of respondent No.4 is a replica of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3.

7. A reply affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioners. It was contended that respondent No.4 issued notices dated 27.08.2024 directing the petitioners to attend the office on 30.08.2024. Whereas the complaint alleged to have been made by the Sarpach is dated 09.09.2024. The Sarpach of the village is a “Marks Woman‟. The complaint, dated 09.09.2024, said to have been made by the Sarpach, was created. Thus, prayed to allow the writ petition.

8. Heard Sri R. Yella Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri P. Rajesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, for respondents 1 and 2; Sri Hari Babu, learned standing counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned standing counsel for respondents 4 and 5.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents reiterated the contentions as per the averments made in the reply affidavit and counter-affidavits.

10. The point for consideration is whether the recommendation made by respondent No.4 to respondent No.3 vide letter No.34/2024/A dated 15.10.2024 to cancel pensions to the petitioners, is legally sustainable?

11. As narrated supra, petitioner No.1 is claiming pension under disability quota, petitioners 2 and 4 under the widow category and petitioners 3 and 5 under the single woman category. In para 5 of the writ affidavit, it was specifically contended that the petitioners received the pension during 2014-2019, however, the same was not denied by the respondents in their respective counter-affidavits.

12. As seen from Ex.P6, letter, dated 14.08.2024, addressed by the member of the Legislative Assembly to respondent No.3, it was asserted that the persons whose names are mentioned therein are not eligible to get pensions and hence, directed the authority to conduct an enquiry and take necessary action to stop the pensions. Thereafter, MPDO, respondent No.4 issued notices to the petitioners.

13. In the notices, it was pointed out that petitioner No.1 is getting old age pension vide ID No.10100100089 in Masakapuram Village, but his wife is working as an Asha Worker; petitioner No.2, though a resident of Odisha State, is getting old age pension vide I.D. No.013700500221 in Masakapuram village; petitioner No.3, though not a single woman, is getting pension vide ID No.10100002900 under single woman category, in Masakapuram village; petitioner No.5 was getting pension vide I.D.No.10100002076, in Masakapuram village under single woman quota, but, her daughter is working as Aasha worker, and all these facts came to light pursuant to Ex.P6.

14. In the counter affidavits filed by respondents 3 and 4, it was specifically pleaded that the Sarpach of the village gave a complaint on 09.09.2024, pointing out that the petitioners are ineligible to get pension, pursuant to which, notices were issued to the petitioners. Along with the counter affidavit, the letter said to have been addressed by the Sarpanch was filed. However, no exhibit number was assigned to the said letter or any other documents filed. Despite the mandate of the Writ Proceedings Rules to number the documents in the “R” series, the documents were not exhibited.

15. Rule 12 (iii) of the Writ Proceeding Rules, 1977 (for short “the Rules‟), prescribes that affidavits in opposition and affidavits in reply shall be filed along with the authenticated copies of the documents on which the party relies.

16. Rule 13(b) sets out that the documents of the petitioner shall be marked as “P‟ series and the respondent as “R‟ series. If there are more respondents than one, each respondent shall mark the documents as “R-1- series, “' R-2-series,‟ and the like according to his rank among the respondents.

17. Despite the Rules mentioned supra, neither respondent No.3 nor respondent No.4 gave exhibit markings to the documents filed along with the counter affidavit, and the authorities withheld those documents.

18. After the petitioners submitted the explanation by annexing the relevant documents, MPDO-respondent No.4 addressed a letter vide Lr.No.18/2024 dated 09.09.2024 to the Tahsildar, Itchapuram, to verify the documents submitted by the petitioners. Even in the said communication, the letter dated 14.08.2024 received from the Member of Legislative Assembly was cited as the first reference. In fact, respondent No.3 addressed letter No.01/2024/NTR Bharosa Pensions, dated 19.08.2024, by enclosing a letter dated 14.08.2024, to respondent No.4, who is the competent authority to deal with the situation and the said letter was annexed to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3.

19. Thus, as seen from the communication filed before this Court, the member of the Legislative Assembly, Ichapuram, addressed a letter, Ex.P6, to respondent No.3, pointing out that the petitioners are ineligible to get the pension. The said letter was forwarded to respondent No.4 on 19.08.2024, since respondent No.4 is the competent authority, and thereafter, respondent No.4 issued notices dated 27.08.2024 to the petitioners.

20. Contrary to the said communication, respondents 3 and 4, in their counter affidavits, contended that an enquiry was initiated in pursuance of a complaint dated 09.09.2024 made by the Sarpanch of Masakapuram village and the villagers. In fact, the respondents denied the letter, dated 14.08.2024, said to have been addressed by the Member of Legislative Assembly and asked the petitioners to prove the said aspect. It is unfortunate that, having filed the communication dated 19.08.2024, made by respondent No.3 to respondent No.4 and further communication, dated 09.09.2024 by respondent No.4 to Tahsildar, wherein reference was made to the letter addressed by the Member of the Legislative Assembly, the authorities, for the reasons best known, made a false statement on oath vis-à-vis the letter of MLA.

21. The other instance i.e. letter, dated 09.09.2024, said to have been addressed by the Sarpach, filed along with the counter affidavits filed by respondents 3 and 4, a perusal of which discloses that the Sarpach of the village and other villagers seem to have affixed their signatures on the letter. The petitioners filed a reply affidavit to the counter affidavit by annexing a resolution dated 06.01.2025, countersigned by the Panchayat Secretary. In the said proceedings, Smt A. Tulasamma, Sarpach, affixed her thumb impression. Thus, this Court believes the version of the petitioners that the Sarpach is a “Marks Woman‟. However, the respondent authorities strongly relied upon the letter dated 09.09.2024, said to have been addressed by the Sarpach and annexed the same to the counter affidavit of respondent No.3. In fact, the discussion supra disproves the contention of the respondents.

22. At the cost of repetition, the letter addressed by the Member of the Legislative Assembly is dated 14.08.2024, and the letter said to have been addressed by the Sarpanch and other Villagers is dated 09.09.2024. The authorities set the process into motion by issuing notices dated 27.08.2024, even prior to the complaint made by the Sarpanch, which is unbelievable and far from the truth.

23. The other instance is regarding the inquiry said to have been conducted by the authorities pursuant to the explanation submitted by the petitioners, which also create any amount of doubt. In the letter addressed by respondent No.4 to respondent No.3 vide letter No.34/2024/A, dated 15.10.2024, letter No.143/2024 C, dated 30.09.2024 and the report, dated 21.09.2024, of the Sarpanch and other villagers are shown as references 1 and 2. Having extracted the contents of the report of MRO dated 30.09.2024, in the counter affidavit, the respondents intentionally withheld the report dated 30.09.2024. The respondents should have annexed the report of the MRO along with the counter affidavit, enabling the Court to peruse the said report. As per the contents of the report extracted in the counter affidavit, the Court must presume that such a report is available with the respondent authorities. However, the authorities withheld the same for the reasons best known.

24. As seen from the recommendations of the Tahsildar, petitioner No.1 is not in the village at the time of enquiry, and his native place is Chodiyalanji village of Odhisa State. He changed the credentials to the State of Andhra Pradesh, without any migration certificate and is getting a pension on a false caste certificate. However, as stated supra, in the notice issued to petitioner No.1, it was pointed out that his wife is working as an Aasha worker. In respect of petitioner No.2, the Tahsildar pointed out that she was not in the village at the time of enquiry and her native village is Saradhapuram in Odisha State. She is residing at her brother‟s house, produced false documents before VRO and RDO and is getting widow pension.

25. Petitioner No.2, in fact, submitted the documents by attending the office of respondent No.4. However, the report of the Tahsildar, as per the extract in the counter affidavit, would indicate that at the time of enquiry, petitioner No.2 was not in the station.

26. In respect of petitioner No.3, it was mentioned that her husband is alive and in respect of petitioner No.4, it was mentioned that she is residing at her brother‟s house and produced a false certificate. Further, in respect of petitioner No.5 it was pointed out that her husband is alive and she submitted false documents. However, in the notice issued to petitioner No.5, it was pointed out that her daughter is working as an Aasha Worker. The respondent authorities failed to explain the discrepancies pointed out supra.

27. Thus, the contents of the Tahsildar extracted in the counter and the contents in the notices issued to the petitioners, vis-à-vis the allegations, do not tally. The Aadhar cards filed by the petitioners would disclose that they are residents of the State of Andhra Pradesh since 2022, 2012, 2023, 2021 and 2021, respectively.

28. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, taking note of the necessity to strengthen the social security framework issued different Government Orders from time to time and the latest being G.O.Ms.No.174, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, dated 13.12.2019, introducing the “YSR Pension Kanuka” with revised guidelines. The said Government Order underscores that the pension scheme is a welfare measure intended to provide financial assistance and ensure a life of dignity to the poor and vulnerable sections of society, including the aged, widows, single women and persons with disability. Thus, the scheme is not a matter of charity, but a measure to advance social justice. While it is open to the authorities to verify the eligibility of beneficiaries and exclude ineligible persons, such exercise shall be undertaken in a fair, transparent and reasonable manner. Any arbitrary deprivation of pension to eligible beneficiaries would defeat the very object of the scheme and cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

29. The object of the Social Welfare Pensions Scheme is to provide the needy and vulnerable people, the assistance/succor. The Government has been enhancing the pension from time to time for the needy. Of course, at the same time, the very object of the pension shall not be frustrated by making payments to ineligible persons.

30. Having sanctioned the pension to the petitioners, if the authorities opine that the beneficiaries are not entitled to the benefits, an enquiry should be conducted transparently. The authorities should mention proper reasons while cancelling the benefit.

31. In the case at hand, on one hand, the Tahsildar‟s report, extracted in the counter affidavit, would disclose that during the enquiry, petitioners 1, 2 and 4 are not available in the village. Since the report does not speak about the availability of the other petitioners, the enquiry said to have been conducted, even if it is true for the sake of argument, violates the principles of natural justice.

32. In fact, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, on the submission made by the learned standing counsel, passed the following docket order, on 11.12.2025:

                  “Learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayat submits that to verify the Aadhar details, the petitioners‟ presence is required, since the phone numbers are linked to their Aadhars. In view of the same, petitioners are directed to appear before the concerned Mandal Development Officer along with their phones registered with Aadhar, at 12:00 Noon on 15.12.2025. Post on 20.01.2026.”

33. Thereafter, the petitioners attended the office of MPDO, and when the Court pointed out regarding the enquiry said to have been conducted by MPDO, the learned standing counsel took time to get a report. However, the said report has not been placed before this Court.

34. Thus, given the discussion supra coupled with the lacunes in the order, this writ petition stands allowed. The recommendation of respondent No.4 to respondent No.3 is hereby set aside. Respondents 3 and 4 shall ensure payment of pension to the petitioners, forthwith. The arrears, if any, shall be paid within twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

35. This order will not preclude the respondent authorities from conducting a fresh enquiry in case the petitioners are found ineligible by means of the process known to law. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.