Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Palukuri Venkata Ratnam vs The State Of Ap on 20 October, 2022
Author: D.Ramesh
Bench: D.Ramesh
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION No.32981 OF 2022
ORDER:
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to declare the action of the respondent authorities in discontinuing the YSR Cheyutha Scheme to the petitioner against the rules governing the distribution of pension as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently, direct the respondent authorities to pay the second phase of amount under YSR Cheyutha Scheme to the petitioner and continue to pay the same.
2. The petitioner is 57 years old and she is not having any property, both movable or immovable and son of the petitioner i.e., one Palukuri madhu Mahendra, who is married and later secured employment as Junior Assistant in FCI, Madras and living along with his wife and son. But the petitioner is living separately and pursuant to the decision of the Government with regard to the YSR Cheyutha Scheme, she made an application duly furnishing all the information and the documents. The respondent authorities after conducting thorough enquiry and scrutiny, sanctioned YSR Cheyutha Scheme and deposited the amount of Rs.18,750/- into the bank account of the petitioner on 12.08.2020 under the first phase of commencement of the scheme. Subsequently, the respondent authorities have stopped the YSR Cheyutha Scheme in the 2 second phase and it came to the notice of the petitioner that it was stopped only on the ground that the petitioner's son is an employee and he got four wheeler car bearing No.AP 20 AM 6446 registered in his name.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's son got employment and living separately with his family, the petitioner has no property either movable or immovable in her favour and she has no other income except the pension, which has been granted; bringing the above aspects, the petitioner also made a representation on 25.10.2022 before the authorities, despite the same, the authorities not considered and restored the pension, which was granted earlier. Hence, the present writ petition.
4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has contended that as per the guidelines issued by the Government, through G.O.Ms.No.174, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (RD.I) Department, dated 13.12.2019 the persons, who are having a household Car having any four wheeler, are not entitled for YSR Cheyutha programme. In the instant case, on verification, it was also proved that the son of the petitioner is having four wheeler. Hence as per the said guidelines, the petitioner is not eligible for the said scheme. Accordingly, the respondents have discontinued payment of the pension to the petitioner.
3
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the material available on record.
6. The issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by earlier order passed by this Court in K.Venkatalaxmatnma Vs.State of Andhra Pradesh and others and batch1, [W.P.No.18874 of 2020 and batch], dated 27.09.2021.
7. By following the above said order, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the said order, with the same directions.
8. The Registry is directed to append the copy of the above said order W.P.No.18874 of 2020 and batch, dated 27.09.2021 to this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
______________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH Date: 20.10.2022 Pnr 1 2021 SCC Online AP 3010