If you are the mother of a deceased government employee, are you his ‘family member’ for the purpose of claiming his service benefits, even if he was married? The revenue authorities said no, that after a son’s marriage only his wife and children count, and that the mother could get a certificate only if the widow chose not to apply. The Andhra Pradesh High Court disagreed. A mother, it held, is a legal heir and a family member of her son, married or not, and cannot be denied a Family Member Certificate or made to wait on the widow’s choice. The rejection was set aside and the certificate ordered to issue.
Amaravati: The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a mother is a legal heir and a family member of her deceased married son, and cannot be refused a Family Member Certificate on the ground that, after his marriage, only his wife and children can be treated as his family members [Mandula Khasim Bi v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others].
Justice B.S. Bhanumathi allowed the writ petition, set aside the Tahsildar’s endorsement rejecting the mother’s application, and directed that the certificate be issued to her.
What the case was about
The petitioner, a 68-year-old woman, is the mother of a Police Constable who died in June 2025. She was shown as the nominee in her son’s service record, and applied through the Meeseva portal for a Family Member Certificate to avail the legal benefits due on his death. A Family Member Certificate is an official document recording the factual relationship between a deceased person and the members of his or her family, commonly required to claim service dues and government benefits; it is distinct from a Legal Heir Certificate.
The Tahsildar rejected her application. The reason recorded was that her son had been married, that under the government rules the mother of a married son could not be treated as his family member, and that only his wife and children could be so treated; the endorsement added that if the son’s widow applied, her application could be considered. The mother, aggrieved, moved the High Court, rather than the appeal available to the Collector, contending that the rejection was illegal and violated natural justice and Articles 14 and 21.
What the Court held
The Court held that the mother is entitled to the certificate. Apart from being the nominee to her son’s service benefits, the Court held, the petitioner, being his mother, is a legal heir and a family member of the deceased employee even in the presence of his wife or children, and can apply for a Family Member Certificate. If, on enquiry, any other family member is found entitled, that person may also be included in the certificate along with the mother, but she cannot be made to wait for the certificate until the wife chooses to seek one.
The governing Government Order, the Court noted, prescribes a clear procedure: on an application through Meeseva, and provided there is no written objection from another family member, the Tahsildar is to publish a seven-day notice in the village or ward, conduct an enquiry, record a panchanama, and then either issue or reject the certificate by a reasoned order within a fixed time. The endorsement rejecting the mother’s claim on the sole ground that a married son’s mother cannot be a family member, and postponing the certificate to the contingency of the widow applying, did not follow that procedure and was, the Court held, apparently illegal.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned endorsement and directed the Tahsildar to follow the procedure prescribed in the Government Order and issue the Family Member Certificate to the petitioner, if found to be the mother of the deceased, along with the names of the other members of the family, if any.
Why it matters
For families trying to claim the dues of a deceased relative, the ruling clears up a practical obstacle that arises often. A parent’s relationship to a child does not end when the child marries, and, as the Court held, a mother remains a legal heir and family member of her son even where he leaves a widow and children. The certificate that records who the family members are cannot, therefore, be refused to a mother simply because the deceased was married, nor can she be told to wait until the widow comes forward.
The decision also underlines that such a certificate is not an either-or document. The presence of a wife and children does not exclude the mother; the correct course, where more than one family member exists, is to conduct the prescribed enquiry and include all those found entitled in the same certificate, rather than to reject one applicant in favour of another. A Family Member Certificate, it bears remembering, records the factual relationship for the purpose of claiming benefits and is not a Legal Heir Certificate, the apportionment of the actual dues among the heirs, if disputed, is a separate question for the appropriate forum.
A word on the Court’s approach to procedure is also useful for those in a similar position. Although the Government Order provides an appeal to the Collector against a Tahsildar’s rejection, the Court entertained the writ petition because the very procedure adopted, a rejection on an untenable ground without following the notice-and-enquiry steps, was found to be illegal. Where an authority acts contrary to the prescribed procedure, a High Court may intervene under Article 226 notwithstanding an alternative remedy, though as a rule the appeal route should be tried first.
Case Title: Mandula Khasim Bi v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others [W.P. No. 14703 of 2026]
Bench: Justice B.S. Bhanumathi, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
Date of Order: July 8, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Ratan Mohan Medida for the petitioner; Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.
Status: Writ petition allowed. Rejection of the mother’s application set aside; Tahsildar directed to follow the prescribed procedure and issue the Family Member Certificate to her, along with other family members if any.