The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GUDI MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION The Court made the following: ORDER t ORDER: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.15109 OF 2021 Heard Mr. G. Madhusudhan Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioner and learned Govcmment Pleader for General Administration Departmcnt (GAD) appearing on behatf of the respondents.

2. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.2 in rejecting the case ofthe petitioner for providing employment under the Scheme of compassionate appointment for the death of his father in extremists violence is illegal and for a consequential direction to provide the employment to the petitioner.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that his father, Tejavath Badyanayak, the President of Mandal Praja Parisad, Gandhari Mandal, was killed by the extremists at Annapuma Theatre of Gandhari Village and Mandal on 06.12.1995 on the ground that he was a police informer. The Police, Gandhari Police Station also registered a case in Crime No.79 of 1995, dated 06.12.1995. The police also declared that the death of his father was due to barbarous act of Naxalites. At the time of incident, his father was young, agcd about 30 years and .-i 2 KL,J W P. No.l5l09 of202l only bread-winner of his familY He belongs to the Scheduled Tribes (s1')

4. As per G.O.Ms.No'469, dated.08'11'199(i implemented w,e.f.26.02.lgg6,thereisnorelieftothefamilymemberssufferedin extremist violation prior to 1996' Subsequently' the Govemment ol Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O'Ms'No'504 of General Administration (SC.A) Department, dated I 1'08'2008, directing the District Collcctors to consider the applications for employnrent where the civilians were killed in extremist violence prior to 26'02'1996 also

5. Pursuant to the said G'O'Ms' No'504' the brother of the petitioner submitted an application seeking employment- The same was rejccted on the ground that he was minor as on the date of death of his father. Respondent No.l also issued G'O'Ms No'50' dated

21.02.2014, wherein Clause - 5 says that the Govemment after careful examination of the recommendation of the Committee' agreed to provide a financial assistance of Rs'5'00 lakhs to the families of civilians rvho are killed in extremist violence, if there is no eligible lamily member in the family to provide compassionate appoint' This assistance is extended to all previous cases where no employmcnt Vt'as providcd and the same witt be in addition to the ex grotio already paid' (_ r 3 KL.J w P ^\o l5l09or:021

6. Despite the order dated 06.11.2010 passed by this Court in W.P. No.241 17 of 2010 observing that the dependants would either be age barred or under aged (minor) at the relevant point of time, still the benefit deserved to be extended. Such benefit was not extended to the petitioner. But, the Govemment wanted to extend such benefit only to the eligibte candidates. The petitioner acquired right to submit apptication onty in the year 2008. The ord"r dated 06' l I '2010 in W'P' No.24117 of 2010 was carried by the Govemment in appeal vide W A' No.69 of 2012. Vide order datei 20.02.2012, the Division Bench of this Court upheld the ratio laid down by leamed Single Judge As against the said order dated 20.12.2012 in the writ appeal' the Govemment carried the matter to the Hon'ble Supreme Courl vide SLP (Civil) No.9521 of 2013 and the said SLP was also dismissed v i de order dated 24.02.20 I 4.

7. Thereafter, the Govemment had issued G'O'Rt'No'2493/ GAD (Services), dated 07.09.2015 stating that all GOs', such as G.O.Ms.No.504 etc. are cancelled and they are not valid Leamed Govemment Pleader for General Administration Department (Tetangana) gave opinion, dated 12'll'2015 stating that G.O.Rt.No.2493 has got prospective effect and the same is applicable 4 KL,J w P No 15109 ot202l in future cases and that G.O.Ms.No.504 was "vithdrawn 'w e f

07.09.201 5 and prior to that date, the Govemment accepted the ratio and oflbred johs tt. In the year 2015, the mother of the petitioner rvas misguided to opt ex gratio oi Rs.5.00 lakhs as per G.O.Ms.No.50. but she did not receive the same. Therefore, the right for job under Ci.O'Ms No'504 is in forcc. As per the said G.O.Ms.No'504 and 50, the petitioner gave an apptication datcd 03.02..2020 to provide employment. Since it was not considered, he filed a writ petition vide W .P. No.l 6195 of 2020 and the same was disposed of vide order daled 22.09.2020 directing the official respondents to consider his representation. Ptrrsuant to the same, the Supcrintendent of Police, Kamareddy subrnitted the report dated 15.10.2020 to respondent No'2 to consider the case of the petitioner s]'mpatheticatly. The mother of the petitioner made a representation dated 19.10.2020 to respondent No.2 that her elder son, Mr. Te.iavath Sathnam Singh has filed an application in the year 2008 as per G.O.Ms.No.504, but the same was not considered on the ground that he was a minor as on the death of his father and now he is sulfering front health problems and requested to prol ide employmcnt to thc petitioncr herein being her younger son. '.\ \\ 5 Kt_ .t wP No 15109 ol l02l

9. The District Collector sought clarification lrom thc Special Chief Secretary, GAD as to whether the application of the petitioner could be considered as per G.O.Ms.No.504. Vide Memo, dated

02.03.2021, respondent No.1 clarified and directed rcspondent No.2 ro take lurther action in pursuance of the order in W.P. No.l6l95 of 2020 and also orders issued in similarly situated cases vide Memos dated 17.08.2015 and ZA.LZ.iOtg. Respondenr No.2 without considering the facts of the case and also the memo, dated 02.03.2021, rejectcd the case of the petitioner vide memo, daled 23.04.202 [ on the grounds: a) application, filed by his brother was rejected; and b) application of the petitioner was not received in 2008;

10. Thus, the order passed by respondent No.2 is illegal and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.504 and 50. Hence, the present writ petition. I l. Itespondent No.2 filed counter opposing the relief souglrt by the petitioner contending as follows: i) The application dated 03.t2.2020 submined by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he was under aged/minor and not qualified for appointment as on the date of death of his father vide lefier dated 06.11.2009. '1 't 6 KL,J W.P No 15109 of2021 ii) I'he petitioner submitted his application only on

03.02.2020 after exhaust of thirteen ( I 3) years period after expiry of three (03) months pcriod given in G.O.Ms.No.504. Thus, he is not cntilled to seek comPassionate aPPointment. iii) No lamily member of the deceased civilian, late Badya Nayak submittcd application in 2014 lor sanction of Rs.5.00 laths in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No 50 including the petitiorier herein within a period of three (03) months' iu) 'fhe petitioner has not submitted any application in 2008 and he only submitted on03.12.2020. t2. In the tight of the aforesaid rival submissions, it is relevant to note that the obiect and issuance of the aforesaid (iOs is to provide employment to the dependant lamily the person killed in extremist violence. to save the said family from financial problem' [n case of death of ma.ior member of the family/sole bread winner in extremist violation, lamily wilt be saved financially. With the saitl object and to support the said famity, the Govemment has issued thc aloresaid GOs'

13. Vide G.O.Ms.No.469, dated 08.11.1996, thc Govemment atNrorized the District Collectors to issue orders itt respcct of any **ii.i: \ ui&. I 7 (L.J WP No It 109 oa 202l department where there is a vacancy for appointment ofa person upon the level ofJunior Assistant/Typist depending upon the qualifications of the applicant. The District Collectors were also authorized to grant rclaxation or age on case to case basis.

14. Vide G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 04.03.1998, thcGovcmmenr has issued orders allowing a minimum period rnentioned therein to acquire requisite cducational qualifications. In case ofa minor, he can seek reliel and relaxation of upper ageleducational qualifications when thc dependant family seeking employment in the category of Clause- IV. The said orders were implemented w.e.f. 26.02.1996.

15. The Govemment has issued another G.O.Ms.No.504, dated I I .08.2008 stating that G.O.Ms.No.469 dared 08. I I .1996 is applicabte to tlre cases of k.itling of civilians occurred prior to 26.02.1996 also, provided that the age and educational qualifications of dependant lamily member seeking employment shall be satisfied as on the date of death of the respective civilians. The concessions allowed in G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 04.03.1998 are also applicable to the applicants.

16. Thereafter, it was brought to the notice of the Government that in many cases where Civilians are killed in extremist/terrorist violence, there are no eligible family members to take up employment. 8 KL.J W.P. No I 5109 of202l Since the date to be reckoned with, is the date of dcath of Civilians and there are cases where the lamily member is a minor or crossed the employable age or does not possess the requircd educational qualification. The tamilies of the civilians killed in er tremisVterrorist violence are approaching the Govemment subsequenrly when the kin of the deceased attains employablc age and after acquiring requisite qualification. The policy envisages providing employment within a year if there is a suitable and eligible family membt'r of the civilian killed in extremist/terrorist violence- However, considering the fact that family is put to disadvantage as assistance is nor provided vis-ri- vrs with the other victims where employment is provided' the issue has been considered and proposed to compensate them rvith additional financial assistance if no employment is given i.e., in cases where there is no etigibte lamily member at the time of death of civilian is extremist violencc. 'l-he issue has been referred to the IIigh Powered Cabinet Sub-Committee constitutcd by the State Govcmment, and the said Sub-Committee recommended to provide a financia I assistance of Rs.5.00 lakhs to the lamilics ol civilians who are killcd in extremist violence, if there is no cligible lamily member in the lamily to provide compassionate apnointment. Eil&&|(.il..e"* 9 KL.J w P No.l5109 of202l 17 . On consideration of the said recommendation of the Committee, the Govemment has issued G.O.Ms.No.50, dated

21.02.2014 to provide a financial assistance of Rs.5.00 lakhs to the lamilies olcivilians who are killed in extremist violence, if there is no etigiblc family member in the family to provide compassionate appointment. The said assistance will be extended to all previous cases where no employment was provided to the families of civilians killed, after due verification by respective District Collector and Superintendcnt of Police. The assistance will be in addition to the er gratia already paid.

18. In the said G.O., it is also stated that the financial assistance in lieu of employment shall be paid to the parents in case of the deceased Civilian is unmanied. In case the deceased Civilian was nrarried the ex gratia shall be distributed to the wife, children and parents in equal proportion. If the parents of the deceased Civilian are not alive, the same shall be paid to spouse and children in equal proportlon

19. As discussed above, extremists killed the father of the petitioner on 06.12.1995. A case in Crime No.79 of 1995 was l0 KL.J w P No 15109 of202l 1 \ registered on 06 12'1995' The potice have also declirred the death of the father of the petitioner is by naxalites'

20. It is relevant to note that the petitioner's brother i'e'' Mr' Tejavath Sathnam Singh, has submitted an apptication in terms of the aforesaidGosseekingemployment.Thesamewasrejectedonthe ground that he was under age and not qualihed for appointment as on the date of death of his fat[er' The District Collector' Nizamabad' has issued proceedings dated 06 ll'2009 accordingly Afler lapse of eteven (l 1) years, the petitioner herein has submitted a representation dated 03.02.2020 seeking employment in terms of tho aioresaid GOs' Therefore, he has filed a writ petition The same was not considered Vide ordet dated 22 (t9 2020, this Court vide W.P. No. 16195 of 202O' disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of six (06) weeks from the date ol'receipt of copy of the said order

21. In compliance with the said order' r'ir1e Memo dated 23.04.2021, respondent No'2 has rejected the requcst made by the petitioner for employment on compassionate ground on the ground arameters of the tuf ,ft. petitioner's case is not falling within thc p i .I // II KL,J \YP No. tJ I09 ot 2021 aforesaid G.Os. It s also fuither stated that similar request made by the petitioner's brother was rejected by the District co ector n vrzle proccedings dated 06. I I.2009.

22. As rightly held by rcspondent No.2, the case of rhe petitioner herein is not t-alling within the parameters of the aforesaid GOs. As rightly observed by respondent No.2, the application . submitted by the petitioner,s brothcr was rejected by respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated 06.11.2009. After elapse of almost eleven (l l) years, the petitioner has subntincd the aforesaid representation dated

03.02.2020 seeking employmenr. IIis case is not falling within the aforesaid parameters. On consideration of the said aspects only, vide proceedings dated 23.04.202 l, respondent No.2 rejected the request made by the petitioner.

23. It is relevanr ro note rhal Mr. G, Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioncr, placing reliance on the order dated

24.02.2025 in W.p. No.l767 of 2022, soughr financial assistance of Rs.5.00 lakhs to the petitioner in rerms of G.O.Ms.No.50, dated

21.02.2014. Perusal of the said order would reveal that in the said case, mother of the deceascd was alive. Therefore, on consideration I t2 KL,J \\' P No 15109 ol202l of the said aspect, this Court directed the respondcnts therein to extend thc said financial assistance to the mother of the deccascd therein'

24. In the present case, the pctitioner hercin has not challcnged the memo dated 23.04.2021. He has not stated about the status of his mother. As discussed above, his brother has already submitted a representation seeking employment and the samc \vas rejected' Therefore, the petitioner, his brother and mother' it alivc' havc to submit a representatiqn to respondent No'3 - District Collector' Kamareddy District, with a request to provide financial assistance in termsofG.o.Ms.No.5O,dated2|.02.2014,anditisfilrrespondent No.3 to consider the same.

25. In the light of the aforesaid discussion' this rvrit petition is disposed of granting liberfy to the petitioner to submil a representation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.50, dated 2l '02'2014, to respondent No 3 with a request to provide financial assistance, within a period olone (01) month from the date of receipt of copy of this order' 'rnd on receipt of such representation, respondent No'3 shall consider:rntl dispose it of in accordance with the aforesaid G'O and law within fbur (04) wccks thcreafter. In the circumstances of the case, there shlrll bc no order as ) ) to costs l3 KL.J W P No li l0g of 2():l As a sequel thcreto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- L. LAKSHMI BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR secfu/orrrcen To,

1. The Principal Secretary (political), General Administration Department Secretariat, The State of Telangana, Hyderabad 2. The Collector and District Magistrate, Nizamabad Dist 3. The Collector and District Magistrate, Kamareddy, Dist 4. One CC to Sri Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Genera! Administration, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] I TJ GJP

6. Two CD Copies ?p HIGH COURT DATED:0910612025 L ORDER WP.No.15109 of 2O21 o -,/C 03 sEPxS .) \r\ t {)":",, ,,..,,:',) ,i c) t) .: DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (* 14