High Court · 2025

Judgment

2. .)

4. 5. b_ The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal. Secretary' Panchayat Raj and nri"i-G*u"rop.*t bepartnient,- Secretariat, Hyderabad' The State of Telangana, r"p. b)' ,d P,i"'ipal S'ecretary Finance and Planning Deoartment, Secret,ariat, Hyderabad' p5""n"vii Raj, State of relangana' Urdu Galli' i[5'E"i]riirJ,lr""i "i' Himavathnaqar, Hyderabad. fh"thiet giecutie Officer, Zilla Parishad Karimnagar'. iii; H;;J M;ster, Zila puii.r,"o secondary tttuitaUaO lvlandal, Rajan na Sircilla District' Karimnagar District. -school, Fothgal Village, Colleitor, Rajanna Sircilla District' -oistrict

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for providing compassionate appointment as per G'O'Ms No' 1 18 dated 18.08.1999 as void, illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently directtherespondentstoconsiderthecaseofthepetitionerforcompassionate appointment in any suitable post in one of the existing vacancies under the control of the resPondents p lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in any suitable post in one of the existing vacancies under the control of the respondents by taking into consideration of the proposals made by the 4th respondent prenfling disposal of the above wrrt petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. S. JAGADISH Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to3&6: cP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2&5: SRI G. NARENDER REDDy, SC The Court made the following: ORDER 1 wp_4537_2018 NB(, J THE HON'BLE SRI .ruSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.4537 of 2018 ORDER: The case of the petitioner, as per the writ affidavit, is that her husband was employed as a Part-time Sweeper in the 5th respondent-Zilla Parishad Secondary School, on 06.11.1984, on consolidated pay; and thereafter his services were converted into full-time contingent employee, against a clear vacancy'HewasgrantedtheminimumoftimescalebyProceedingsdated 19.06.1986, and the 5-years'pay scale on 06'03'1993, apart from granting revised pay scales. The Government issued G'O'Ms'No'118, Finance & Planning (FW-PC-III) Department, dated 18 08'I999, and G'O'Ms'No'212' Finance & Planning (FW-PC-III) Depaftment, 22'04'1994, and G'O'(P) No' Finance & Planning (FW-PC-il) Department, dated23'07 '1997, proposing to regularize the services of contingent/part-time/temporary workers, and whiletheregularizationproposalofthepetitioner'shusbandwasunder consideration with the 1't respondent-Govemment, the petitioner's husband died on 20.05.1998. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment under G'O'Ms'No' 1 I 8 dated 1g.0g.1999, in a suitable post, on account ofthe demise ofher husband. Her application has not been considered till date; hence, this writ petition'

2. Heard Mr. S' Jagadish, leamed counsel for the petitioner; and learned Standing Counsel for the respon dent-Zllla Parishad' Perused the record' Leamed counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions on the 3. lines of writ affidavit, would contend that the 1't respondent-Govemment is the competent authoritY to consider the proposals and regularize the services I t €.{i 2 wp_4537_2018 NBK, J ofher husband, md the 4ft respondent has no authori[ to deny the relief sought in the ivrit petirion. 4- Leamed Standing Counsel, based on the counter affidavit. would contend that the husband of the petitioner could not fi.rlfil the conditions stipulated under the G.O.(P) No. I I 2 dated 23.07 .199?, and G. O.Ms.No.2 I 2 dated 22.04.11)9a, and, therefore he is not entitled to regularization. It is contended that r3.O.Ms.No. 1 18, which is a deemed regularization on account of admirristrative delay in regularization, is not applicable in this case as the husband of the petitioner did not fulfil the regularization conditions.

5. Having corLsidered the respective contentions and perused the record, it is relevant to rt:l'er to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of Indiar, wherein the apex Court, by referring to State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi2, held as follows:

26. While the judgment in Umadevi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of hackdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long_ serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. lt categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to 12024 tNsc 1034 , (zoog74 566 1 3 wp_4537_2018 NBK,I procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the iudgment in Umadevi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgmenf s explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.

27. ln light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody' This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.

6. In the instant case, admittedly, the husband of the petitioner was appointed as a paft-time sweeper on 06. I 1 .1984 and later converted to full- time and was also granted pay revision commission benefits. He died on 20.05.1998 while in service. The petitioner's husband served for over 9 years 19 days (close to 10 years) by the cut-offdate25.ll'1993, and further he rendered services initially as part-time time employee and later as a fulltime employee within this 9 years 19 days period, which deserves favourable consideration for regularization. Furthermore, he rendered a total of 14 years of service and died while in service. In that view of the matter, t I l * .,i -''8 ,a.rl .! ':. 4 wp_4517 2018 NBK, J this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner's husband is entitled for regularizatiorr, in the light of the judgment of l{on'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo (supra); however, as he is no more, the case o1- the petitioneq for colnpassionate appointment in a suitable post, deserwes to be considered favourably under G.O.Ms.No.1 18, by construing that her husband is deemed to have been regularized.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The l.t respondent-principal Secretary is directed to pass appropriate orders wirh regard to the compassionate aJrpointment of the petitioner in any suitable post, within a period of eighr vreeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this or.der. No costs. Miscellanecus petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above Witness THE HON'BLETHE CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL, TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE //TRUE COPY// SRINIVASA REDDY TANT REGISTRAR :F-.-- SEGTION OFFICER To, T.S.,Hyderabad. Secretariat, T. S., Hyderabad-

1. The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Ru evelopment Department, 2. The Principal Secretary Finance and Planning Department, Secretariat, 3. The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj, State of Telangana, Urdu Galli, 4. The Chief Executie Officer, Zitla Parishad, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 5. The Head I\{aster, Zilla Parishad Secondary School, Fothgal Vil{age, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. Mustabad ltrland al, Rajanna Sircilla District. 6. The District Collector, Rajanna Sircilla District. 7. One CC to SRl. S. JAGADISH ,Advocate [OPUC] B. Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEVELOPIVENT,High 9. One CC to SRl. G. NARENDER REDDY, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT Court for the S;tate of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] loPUCl

10. Two CD Copiers B I\,'1 JP i I I I l I I l HIGH COURT DATED:0710112025 a) I I 13 DrT 2025 * ar,- ,- ^:. -. ::. ;',_'-,i-i _ : ORDER WP.No.4537 of 2018 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ ./3 4 -,tE' , { ,//