IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1245 of 2009 Between: Smt. B. Subbamma, W/o. Late B. Anjaneyulu, Now Residing at 19-4-3/A2, S.T.V. Nagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Executive Officer, T.T.D. Tirumala, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 2 Smt. B. Audilakshmi, W/o. Late B. Anjaneyulu, R/o. 13-1-84, Peddakapu Street, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 3 B. Murali, S/o. Late B. Anjaneyulu, R/o. at 19-4-3/A2, S.T.V. Nagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for respondent No.1: MR.D.SETHURAMI REDDY (SC FOR TTD) Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3: MR T.S.PRAVEEN KUMAR The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.1 in giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner as illegal. Heard Sri Y.Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.Sethurami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, and Sri T.S.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner claims to be the wife of Sri B.Anjaneyulu, who was an employee of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams and died in harness. She applied to the Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams-respondent No.1 for extending her the benefit of compassionate appointment. By proceedings dated 21-11-2008, respondent No.1 called upon the petitioner to furnish succession certificate in order to enable him to consider her request. From the pleadings filed by the parties, it is clearly evident that there is a dispute regarding the legal status of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 claims that she is the legally wedded wife of late Sri B.Anjaneyulu and that respondent No.3 is the son. They, therefore, claim that the petitioner, who is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee, is not entitled to the benefit of compassionate appointment. In view of this dispute, respondent No.1, in my view, rightly called upon the petitioner to furnish the succession certificate. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the said order of respondent No.1. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court for obtaining succession certificate. As and when such certificate is produced by the petitioner before respondent No.1, he shall consider her case for compassionate appointment, subject to the rights of respondents 2 and 3. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.1571 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 31st March, 2009 vrn