IINDLA KRISHNAMMA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction on the part of the 3rd respondent, the District Collector, Chittoor, in providing the benefits to her in terms of G.O. Ms. No.3 Social Welfare (HI) Department dated 16.1.1996, and Rule 12(4), Annexure-I Sl.No.20 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') as erroneous, arbitrary and contrary to law. A consequential direction against the 3rd respondent is sought for providing employment to the petitioner or to pay her pension at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month, apart from extending education facility to the children of the petitioner.

(2.) The basis for the petitioner in claiming the relief is thus: The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste Community. Her husband by name Reddanna was said to have been murdered on 2.10.2002 by two persons by name Shaik Qader Valli and P. Anand, at Tirupathi. According to the petitioner, the murder of her husband attracts the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and thereby she is entitled to the benefits, provided under Rule 12 read with Item No.21 of the annexure. It is her case that the accused in the said offence are being tried for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. On a representation made by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent extended the benefit of Rs. 1,50,000/- through his proceedings dated 11.2.2003. The petitioner claims that in addition to the same, she is entitled to be provided an employment and her children are to be provided educational facility. She submitted a representation dated 13.4.2003 to the 3rd respondent for extension of other benefits as provided under the Rules.

(3.) The writ petition came up for admission on 17.6.2003. In as much as almost all the facts are borne out by record and what is involved is only an interpretation of the relevant provisions, the matter was adjourned to enable the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare to get ready. The learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare advanced extensive arguments with reference to the relevant provisions.