The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitron, the High Court may be pleased tc direct the Reqpondent No 2 to re-consider the case of the pqtilioner tor providing the employment as per elause 2 and 3 of G.Q Ms.409 GA.D (SC-A) Dept,, dl 08/1 1/1996 RA/V clause 5 of GO.Ms. 50, G,A. (Sc-A) Dept, dt 2110U2014 read with Sup-Clause (b) of Clause (2) of section 4 of the Telangana (Regulgtion of Appointments of Pr-rblic Services And Rationalisation 9f staff Patlern Epd Pay Structurq) Act, 1994 (Act 2 of 1994) in pul9uande o{ the representation dated 2E.5.2Q?0 or pendrng disposal qf the main rylif petrtion. lA NO: 1 OF 023 Petition under Section 191 CPQ prayirlq that in the circumstances Stated in the affipavil filed in support gf the petition, lhe High Court may be. pleased tg receive lhe ?dditional material pnd cgr,npeq!?Ig thg amSUnt in the msasulerngnls of yards instead of guntas or acres in the W.P. Nq. f ZbT ot 2021 in the Hon'ble High Cgurt for the State of Telqngapa. Counsgl for the Petitioner : SBI SABAVAT KBISHNA Qounsel for the Respondents; GP FQR GENERAL AqMINISTRATIqN The Court made the followingi ORDEB THE TION'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.1767 OF 2o22 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer "To issue writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action o[ respondent No.3 in issuing the proceedings vide LR. No.Cll2l8l2ol8 dated 29.12-2018 refusing ro provide appropriate job as per the provisions of the clause 2 and 3 of G-O.Ms. No.469 G.A.D. (SC,A) Department dated 08.11.1996 R/w Clause 5 of G.O.Ms. No.50 G.A. (Sc A) Department dated 21.O2.2O14 read with Sub-clause (b) of Clause (2) of Section 4 of Telangana (Regulation of Appointments of Public Services and Ratinalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (Act 2 ot 1994) as arbitrary and illegal cven though the petitioner made representation on 28.O5.2O2O and also violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of Indra and consequently direct the respondents to sct aside the same and to provide appropriate job in thc State Government in accordance with above mentioned provisions or to pass any other order or orders.

2. None appears for the petitioner. There has been no representation for the petitioner ol O3.O2.2O25, 1O.O2.2025 and t7.o2.2025.

3. Since, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner and having regard to the lis involved in the relief sought for, this Court has proceeded to consider the writ \._ -../ 2 avermen ts and the arguments of the learned Gc,vernment Pleader for ( )AD appearing on behalf of responclents 4 . The c I se of the petitioner, in brief, is that her br other Mr. A Sekl-rar rv:r:r killed by extremists on 27.O7.1996 at La,rmisagar, Kadam Mandal, Adilabad District and the fact of the p(.titioner,s brother being, killed in extremists violence was duly rer orded by registering a ,:rime uide FIR No.41 of 1996 dated 2g.O7.1996.

5. It is thc further case of the petitioner that though the Government. had issued G.O.Ms. No.469 dated Og Il.1996 providing lb:- employment to the dependant family r iz., son, claughter a,'rd spouse, inasmuch as the deccas.ed was unmarriecl, titc petiLioner herein being sister is entit|:d to be providecl rvitlL cmployment in terms of G.O.Ms. No.469 z,nd non_ consideratior, of the request made by the petitioner for p,roviding employment L-,v the respondents is highly illegal. arbitrary and contrary to tlic aforesaid G.O.

6. Per cotrara, learned Government pleader appea ring on behalf of resl)ondents would submit that the mother of the deccased I\1r . A. Sekhar is alive and ln fact, s l-re had approached t -ris Court on an earlier point of time by hl: ng Writ Petition uide W.p. No.2O955 of 1999 seeking for pr oviding Y 3 employment to her 2"d son A. Ramesh, who is the brother of the deceased

7. lrarned Government Pleader further submits that this Court by order dated 2 1.08.2008 had dismissed the aforesaid Writ Petition holding that from a reading of the aforesaid G.O. it is clear that only son, daughter or spouse of a person killed by the extremists is to be provided with employment and since the 2nd petitioner in the aforesaid Writ Petition is the brother of the person who was killed by extremists, he does not fit into. the benefiL extended by the Government in G.O.Ms. No.469.

8. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that thereafter the mother of the petitioner had also approached this Court by filing another Writ Petition uideW.P. No.39956 of 2O 18 and had withdrawn the aforesaid Writ Petition to assail the action of the respondent authorities in passing the rejection orders whereby the claim to provide employment was negatived. 9 . Learned Government Pleader would further submit that lhe petitioner suppressing the disposal of the aforesaid two Writ Petitions has filed the present Writ Petition.

10. Learned Government Pleader would also contend that the petitioner being the sister of the deceased Mr. A. Sekhar is not 4 entitled for being conferred with benehts in terms o1 G.O.Ms. No.469 datcd 08. 17.7996 or G.O.Ms. No.5O4 dated 1 I .08.2008 as the petititner cannot be considered as family memt.,er of the deceased kilr<:d in extremists violence.

11. I have taken note of the respective contentions ur3ed.

12. Firsttl,, it is to be noted that this Court in W.p. I,1o.20955 of 1999 havr rLg he ld that the provision of employment in terms of G.O.Ms. lrlo.469 is confined to son, daughter or sp<:usc of a person killerd llY extremists, Lhe petitioner herein who acmittedly claims to be the sister of the deceased Mr. A. Sekherr is not entitled for being provided with employment.

13. Secondlv, it is also to be noted that the per.itioner,s mother hz i ng approached this Court carlier seeking emplovment t,r her other son viz., A. Ramesh b1, the zrforesaid Writ Petition :rnd the said Writ petition having been dismissed by this Cour.t, the petitioner who also stands on the same footing cannot maintain the present Writ petition.

14. Horve,.,c r, notwithstanding the dismissal of tlre Writ Petition filed by the petitioner,s mother seeking emp.oyment initially for h< r other son viz., A. Ramesh and the petitioter now filing the Writ Pctition seeking employment to herself tho ugh are not entitled Ior being provided with employment in tr:rms ol 5 G.O.Ms. Nos.469 or 504, the petitioner's mother is entitled for payment of additional exgratia in lieu of employment in terms of G.O.Ms. No.5O dated 21.O2.2014.

15. It is to be noted that the Government taking note of the fact thal in all cases they are unable to provide employment to the family of the deceased of the victims in extremists violence had issued G.O.Ms. No.50 dared 2I .O2.2O14 providing for payment of additional exgratia of Rs.5,00,000 l- in lieu of cmploymcnt if there is no eligible family member as on the da[e of death of the victim.

16. Admittedly, the deceased Mr. A. Sekhar was unmarried when he was killed by extremists on 27.O7.1996 and thus there would be no dependant family except the parents i.e., the mother, lathcr and brothers and sisters. However, the aforesaid family members could not be provided employment in lerms ol G.O.Ms. No.469. Since, the family members of Mr. A. Sekhar could not be provided with employment being not eligible in terms of G.O.Ms. Nos.469 or 504, the mother of ttre deceased A Sekhar viz., A- Chandrakaia, W/o A. Shankaraiah @ Shankar would be entitled for payment of additional exgratia of Rs.5,OO,OOO/- as there is no eligible family member of the dcceased victim. 6 (

17. Howe.;,1r, it is not shown to this Court the rr,spondent authorities )raving made payment of additional e>:gratia of Rs.5,0O,O0O/- ro the mother of the victim viz.. A. Chandrakala upon the Covcrnment issuing thc aforesaid G.O. Tlrough on behalf of the respondents, it is contended by thr learned Government Dleader that the mother had never approerched the respondent authorities and submitted application for payment of additional exgratia and on the other hand she .,vas only seeking employment to her other son or the ,laughter approaching r_his Court by the present Writ petition, i1 is to be noted that in rerms ot C.O.Ms. No.5O a duty and responsibility is cast on thr: District Collec to r / S uperintendent of polic,: to take necessary action by communicating the benefit that was extended in Lr:rms of G.O.Ms. No.50 to the families of civrlians killed in e>:tr-emists violence u,ho could not be pror.icted with employment and obtain applications within three monlhs from the date of iss;uance of the aforesaid G.O. i.e., 21.O2.2t)14 and to make pal.ment of financial assistance as extendcd thereunder.

18. Thus, the submission of the learned Government pleader of the victirl's mother not approaching the respondent authorities ancl submitting application for payment of adCitional Y t \ l exgratia of Rs.5,00,000/-, this Court is of the view that it is for the authorities to reach out to the victims of the families of the civilians killed in extremists violence and to extend the benefit and not to deny the benefit on the ground of they not having approached them.

19. Though in the facts of the present case, the petitioner is claiming to be provided with employment to her in terms of G.O.Ms. No.469, since the said issue is no longer resintegra in view of the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No.20955. of 1996 this Court is of the view, no relief can be granted.

20. Howevcr, taking note of the fact that the victim's mother R. Chandrakala is alive, this Court is of the view that the respondent authorities are to be directed to extend the benefit of payment of additional exgratia of Rs.5,00,000/- to R' Chandrakala, W/ o R. Shankaraiah by communicating the benelit, which she is entitled to receive in terms of G.O.Ms. No.50 dated 27.O2.2O14 and obtain necessary application from her for the payment of additional exgratia amount. Upon the respondenL authorities obtaining the necessary application, the respondent authorities re directed to make the payment of additional exgratia to her along with interest at the rate of 8%o as directed by this Court in W.P. No.19215 of 2022 The ! t 8 () respondent authorities are directed to complete the entire exercise of otrtaining application from petitioner's mo.her and making pavment of additional exgratia along with inrerest as directed herr:inabove within a period of eight u,eeks :iom the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 2l . Subject to the above direction, the Writ Per,ition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in t hc Writ Petition, shall stand closed. /TTRUE COPY// A tB^Bv / STRAR, SD'.L. LAKSHM sssrAxr nect \\ i, ,tci16r.r oFFlcER Generar Administration To, ' U?"1fiEfJ[3',fti"'"?i8;!?8,:Xii:'T'J:l3BL::":""o 2. The District Collector and Magistrate Adilabad Dist Adilabad 3. The District CPlleqtqr' Nirmal qistnct' Nirmal' 4. one eO to sRlsABAvA.r KRTSHNA' ^q.Tltl-lll"' 5. T,wo CCE to 9Pj9S GENERAL ADMINISTRATIoN' Hlstl Court forthe State 9f Telanqana' 1t'u t1

6. TWo 9Q Qopies B9K \fr (f--f HIGH COURT DATED:2410212025 (t ORDER WP.No.1767 of 2022 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ?k @fsl''i