Narakongu Nagamani v. 1. The State of Telangana

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 suspend the impugned proceedings in Rc.No. C186912022 dated 1010312023 of the 4th respondent while directing the respondents to conrluct enquiry and take appropriate acticln in accordance with law, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NAYAKAWADI RAMESH Counsel for the Respondents No 1 To 4: AGP FOR SERVICES I counsel for the Respondent No 5: sRl KAMALAKARA RAo BATHINA The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.16492 OF 2023 ORDER: Heard Sri Nayakwadi Ramesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.l to 4 and Sri Kamalakara Rao Bathina, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5.

2. The petitioner approached the court secktng_grayer as under: "...to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring challenging the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.C/869/2022 dated 10.03.2023 of the 4th respondent by rejecting the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as VRA in place of her father late Sri Gopaiah, who expired while in service, solely on the ground the 5th respondent has filed an objection as illegal, arbitrary, void ab initio and violative of due procedure of law and violative of the scheme enunciated by the Government for compassionate appointments and consequently set-aside the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.C/869/2022 dated 10.03.2023 of the 4th respondent by directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds as VRA in place of her father late Sri.Gopaiah and pass..." 2 SN, J

3. The case of the oetitioner in brief as oer the averments made in the affidavit filed bv thg oetitioner in suoport of the present Writ petition is as under:- It is specific case of the petitioner that the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.c/869/2022, dated 10.03.2023 had been passed by the 4th respondnet rejecting the case cf the petitioner for compassionate appointment as vRA in place of petitioner,s father late sri Gopaiah, who had expired while in service, solely on the ground that the 5th respondent had filed an objection as illegal, arbitrary, void ab initio and viorative of due procedure of law and violative of the scheme enunciated by the Government for compassionate appointments. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. PERUS ED THE RECORD A. The imouqned order No.Rc.No.C/869 /2O22. dated 1o.o3.2o23 of the 4th respondent is extracted hereunder:- In pursuant to the above reference, Chekuri Thirupamma W/o Gopaiah. that her husband Late Gopaiah S/o Nagaiah died on the date: 20.06.2019 while working as a village helper, at Mudigonda Mandal, Vallabhi village. An application was made by Naripogu Nagamani w/o lSte Hussain (daughter) requesting to provide compassionate appointment. Regarding this application, this office to know whether there are any objections on this application i.e. / / I I i : 3 SN, J appointment of Mrs. Narapogu Nagamani all the family members are requested to attend on 01.03.2023 at 11:00 am. On 01.03.2023 at about 11.00am Smt Gunjuluri Mangamma, Smt Yandrathi Vijaya Kumari, Smt Vanguri Lakshmi (daughters) attended this office. Mrs. Vangoori Lakshmi W/o Tirupathi Rao (daughter) has submitted a written objection not to make compassionate appointment to Narupogu Nagamani W/o Late Hussain (daughter). This is to inform Chekuri Tirupamma W/o Late Gooavva tha the members of vour fa ilv i.e. Mrs. Vanouri Lakshmi W/o Tirupati Rao (dauqhter) have expressed objections to orovidinq comoassionate annaintlrent I zl-a Hussain (dauqhter) and this issue is considered as a familv disoute. Therefore your aoolication is rejected. ttr Mrc Nrranat.rrr Narrarrr ni llf la No.14O733/Ser.A/2OO3-1.Genl.Admn.(Ser.A\ Dept.. dated

14.11.2OO3 issued bv the Government, oertaininq to certain clarification with reoard to the compassionate appointments to the dependents of deceased Government emolovees is extracted hereunder:- Government direct that the Compassionate 3. appointment to the dependents of he deceased Government employee shall b€, considered either to spouse, son or daughter. In case, if the wife of the deceased Government employee is not inclined to take appointment a compassionate grounds or not qualified for the appointment, the 'choice of selecting one her dependent chitdren' either son or daughter, shall vests with her (the wife of the ceased Government employee). I : ! I 1 I I I I i i I I I r 4 SN, J c. The counter affidavit filed on behatf of the resoondent No.4 and in oarticular oara Nos. 7 and 1o are extracted hereunder:-

7. It is respectfully submit that one of the family member of the deceased VRA i.e. Smt.Chekuri Laxmi, daughter of the deceased has filed objection petition before this respondent dt.01.03.2023 stating that one Sri. Narapongu Naveen, grandson of the petitioner herein, has iilegally obtained family member certificate as he was arso one of the family member of the deceased and filed a civil suit in Khammam vide IA t/2023, against them and this suit is dismissed as not pressed Further stated that she is objecting for the compassionate appointment to the petitioner, and she requested to issue compassionate appointment to her in place of her deceased father. As such a memo has been issued by this respondent to the petitioner vide Memo C/B6g/22, dt.(J t.3.2023 and considered the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as one of her family menrber has given objection while informing the objections, Aggrieved by this the petitioner filed the Writ Petition.. 10. It is respectfully submit that, the deceased has attained the age of 68 years as on the date of death i.c., 20.6.20L9. Further as stated as per the provisions of rule B(3) r/w sub-rule (1) and clause C of A.p. Village Revenue Assistants Service Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No 1949. Revenue(V.O) Dept, dt.28.10.2005, the spouse/dependent children of a village Revenue Assistant who dies in harness before the attaining the age of (60) years may be appointed as Village Revenue Assistant provided that there is no other earning member in the family of such deceased Village Revenue Assistant and an applicat.ion is made in this regard within a period of one year from the death of such Village servant. In this regard it is submitted that the deceased attained the age of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, and the objector who is one of the family members requested for compassionate f ( 5 SN appointment. Further the mother of the petitioner i.e, apoointment to the petitioner who was her dauohter. Further the petitioner has also filed applications after Iapse of more than (3) years. In view of all these facts the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment deserves no consideration mainly puts-forth the following submissions:: a) The order impugned, dated 10.03.2023 issued by the 4th respondent is a routine order passed mechanically without application of mind, rejecting the application of the petitioner's mother, dated 26.LL.2O22 for providing the compassionate appointment on the ground that the 5th respondent had expressed objections for providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner is illegal and irrational. b) The case of the petitioner needs to be considered, in view of the fact that the mother of the petitioner gave her consent for appointment of petitioner on compassionate grounds. c) The case of the petitioner has to be necessarily considered on compassionate grounds as per Memo a 6 SN, J No.14O733/SER. Al2OO3-1,Genl.Admn. (Ser.A) Dept., dated L4,L1.2003 issued by the Government (referred to and extracted above). emplovee's family members. I / 7 SN, J appointed. 8 SN, J / D/ \ 1 i l 9 SN, J take action in accordence to the rules in force and calrnot rejegt the apolication of the oetitioner at the threshold itself. on the oround that the Sth resoondent had not submitted "No Objection Certificatgl-f for providinq compassionate aopointment to the oetitioner, when it is specific case of the petitioner that all the familv members of the oetitioner aqreed to provide qompassionate appointment to the petitioner, exceot the 5th respondent who had obiected for providinq the said comoassignate aopointment to the oetitioner and the wife of the providinq aopointment to petitioner on compassionate orounds amonq all her children. 1O. The obiect of comoassionate appointment is a social security measure to suooort the family of the deceased governrnent servant, who dies in harness. The aim and object of the oolicv for comoassionate aopointment is to Brovide financial support to the family of the dedeased emolovee, who left the dependents in distress and oenury. The core aim of the object of providing como?ssionate aooointment is to relieve the familv from financial t i ! I I I I i 10 SN, J sufferinos beino faced for the sudden demise of the Bread winner of the family. The sufferinos beino faced bv the deoendents of the deceased employee for sudden demise of the d Winner could solved for''some extent bv providinq comoassionate aopointment to one of the dependents of the deceased emoloyee to look after the familv. The said relief should not be denied on frimsv orounds defeatinq the verv obiect of the comoassionate aooointment.

11. This court ooines thdt the petitioner has a rioht for consideration of oetitioner's case for compassionate aopointment and in view of the clear adrnission in the counter affidavit filed 4th respondent(referred to and extracted above) that the mother of the petitioner Smt. Chekuri Thirpamma had on behalf of filed the apolication -epresentation. dated 26.11.2o22 to the 3'd respondent reouestino for. orovidino compassionate aopointment to the oetitioner who is a married dauqhter. -'--\.lr"*___-. / / t SN, J admissi had been ht on record bv the 4th t2 SN, J threshold itself. a) '-The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the reanned counser appearing on beharf of the petitioner, rearned Assistant Government preader for services-r appearing on beharf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and tearned counser appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5. c) The counter affidavit fired on beharf of the respondent No.4 in particular para Nos.7 & l0(refemed to and extracted above) )f / L 13 sN'r the 4th impugned order d) The contents of No.R.c.N o.869 / 2022, dated 10.03.2023 of respondent (referred to and extracted above) e) The contents of the Memo No.14o733/sER. Alzoog- 1,Genl.Admn.(ser.A) Dept., dated L4.t1.2oo3 pertaining to certain clarification with regard to the compassionate appointments to,the dependents of deceased Government employees had been provided for (referred to and extracted above). The fact as borne on record that the 4th respondent ignored the object of the compassionate appointment and rejected the application of the petitioner's mother dated 26.1L.2o22, based on an objection tetter, dated 01.03.2023 received from the 5th respondent, and had passed the impugned order, dated 1O.O3.2023, mechanically without conducting any enquiry at the threshold itself. -r 1 ; 4 SN, J I / t l5 SN, J Miscellaneous petitions, if dfly, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SRINIVASA REDDY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER TO, 1 The Principql Secretary, Revenue Department, of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The District Collector, Khammam District at Khammam. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam Revenue Division, At Khammam. 4. The Tahsildar,, [/udigonda Mandal, Khammam District. 5. One CC to SRl. NAYAKAWADI RAIUESH, Advocate 1beUC1 6. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES I ,High Court for the State of Telangana. At HyderabadlOUTl

7. One CC to SRl. KAIVIALAKARA RAO BATHINA, Advocate [oPUC] 8. Two CD Copies DAN W GJP 4 n CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED:16/0912025 ORDER WP.No.16492 ot 2023 iyt "1lt.a, 1 6 0E[ n21 * DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \v \6