The High Court · 2025

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 Order daled 1711212024 in W.P No 2434 ot 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Honourable High court a I lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Between: DUNDUKURI RI\JESH S/o late [\/allaiah Unerrployed, R/'L 2-57 High Scholl Road. Aged aborl 24 years, Occ Kamalapur \4andal, Warangal Urban District AND ....PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.,I 1 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFtCER. Zilla Praja Parishad, Karimnagar District. 2 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, Zilla Praja Parishad. Warangal Urban District ...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 3 THE STATE OF TELANGANA, Rep. by its Principa Secretary School Education Dept. Telangana Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 4 THE GOVERENMNET OF TELANGANA, Rep by its Principal secretary, PR and RD Dept. Telangana, Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the cirr;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Vacate the lnterim C-)rders granted by this Hon'ble Court on 17-07-2025, in l.A.No.2 of 2025 in W.A.No.752 of 2025 Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. PRADEEP REDDY KATTA (SC FOR TG ZILLA PARISHAD) Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI GURRAM SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3: Ms. M. SHALINI, GP FOR SERVICES ll The Court made the following: JUDGMENT C * * 4 * f ,, .* // THE HON'BLE THE CIIIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KIIMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN Writ Appeal No.752 of 2025 JUDGMENT: Heard Mr.Katta Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellar-rts, Mr.Gurram Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Ms.M.Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services-ll appearing for respondent No.3 .

2. Appellants, u.ho are the Chief Executive Oliicers ol Zilla Praja Parishad, Karimnagar and Warangal Urban Districts, are aggrieved b.y the impugned direction dated

07.I2.2O24 issued in W.P.No.2434 of 2019, whereby the order dated 26.03.2017 rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner-respondent No.1 herein, i.e., the son of the part- time employee, for regularisation of his father's service was set aside, ald a direction rvas issued to respondent No.3 therein-Chief Executive Officer, Zllla Praja Parishad, Karimnagar District, to pass appropriate orders for l appointmenl. of the writ petitioner on colllpassionate grounds r\/ithin a stipulated time

3. Born-- from the pleadings on record and bereft of unnccessarJ details, it can bc culled out tl-Lat the n,rit petitioner's l ather was engaged on part-time basis in the vea,r 1987 under the Zll\a Parishad and died in the vear 2015 in the sarne status. He never made aly claim for regularisation. After his death, the u,rit petitioner approacherl the learned Andhra Pradesh Adrninistrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, the Tribunal'), uide O.A.No.2073 of 2016, lor regularisation of his father's service and ibr compassionate appointment ir-L lieu of l-ris dcath. Pursuant to the order passed b1. tne le:rrned Tribunal, clated 08.O6.20 16, the impugned crder dated

26.03.2017 '.r,as passed by appellant No.1 rejecting the clatm, inter tlia, on the ground that his lather was not etigible for rr: gularisation as per the Telangana Last Grade Services Rulers 1992, as he had not completed ten years of service on thr: cut-off date 25. 1 1. 1993. Since his father lr.as not eligible iirr regularisation as per G.O.Ms.Nc.112 <lated

23.07 .1997 , \'i,rit petitioner's ciaim for compassionate appointment could not be considered

4. The learned ri rit Court, aJter hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of the pleadings on record, held as under: '5. Having considered thc respective submissions and pemsing the record, it is pertinent to note that even as per the counter afhdavit of respondent No.3, the father of the petitioner was appointed in the year 1987 as Sweeper on part-time basis. Furtl-er, it is not in dispute that the petitioner's father was still in service by the date of consideration of his casc for regularization under G.O.(P) No. 112, though he is stated to be not eligible by the respondents. Be that as it may, petitioner's father continued in service until his demise in the year 2O15. It is the specihc case of the pctitioner that his father rendered fuli-time services though he was a part-time Sweeper. Petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.5916 of 2011, which is a similar case where the respondents therein rendered full- time services though they were said to be "part-time", and they approached this Court aggrieved by non-payment of wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. This Court directed payment of minimum wages, based on the earlier judgrnent of this Court in wP No. 1045 of 2OO7 which was upheld by the Hon'ble Suprcme Court in SLP (C.C) No. 1063O of 2O 1 1. 6. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner joined respondents' oflice in 1987 as part time Sweeper ard -1 worked tilL the date of his demise in 2O 15. The reasoning and the view taken by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in rV.P.No.S916 of 20 I 1, insofar as the clarm of the petitioner herein about his father working full-time, is applicabl,: to the case at hald. Petitioner represented to the respondent-Zilla Parishad officc to appoint him on compassionate grounds on account of his father's demise irfter rcn<i 'ring 28 years o[ scrvice. 7. Har,irLg considered thc respcctive submissions, and perusing the record, this Court is of the view that the case of the pt'titioner deserves sympathetic considerzrLion for compassi()nate appointment and therefore deems it ht to exercise tliscretion under extraordinary jurisdiction of this Corrrt un.ler Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Ac:ordingly, tJ'e impugned order dated 26.03.2017 is set aside, and the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.3 shal- pass appropriate orders for appointment of thc petitioner on compassionate grounds, within a period of eight',vcel:s from the date of receipt of a copy of tJlis order. No costs.

5. Leanreri counsel for the appellants submits that the case of the ri rit petitioner is covered by the dec1sion of this Court passe:l in W.A.No.998 ol 2025 dated i5.09.2O25 on same and ::imilar grounds. The only difference in the prcsent case is that the order of rejection dated 26.O3.2O17 passed b1- a;rpeilar-rt No.1 herein was also under challenge, whereas no such challenge was made in W.P.No.524O of

2018. Oti-rer..vise, this Court had come to a clear Iinding r--E that the husband of the petitioner- widow, r,r,ho was also a part-time r,vorker, did not complete ten ].ears of continuous service as per G.O.Ms.Nos.112 and i 18 clated 23.07.1997 and 18.08.i999, respectivelr', and lherefor-e. could no'r have been regularised in service post his death at the behest of the u'idow. Similar is the case of the preser-rt u'rit petitioner. The learned r.l'rit Court has therefore commrtted an error bv setting aside the impugned order, though thc case of the r.r,rit petitioner's father was not lit for regularisation, AS having not completed ten years of continuous servrce AS per G.O.Ms.No.1i2 dated 23.07.1997 bf ihc cut off date

25. i 1.1993.

6. Learned counsei for the n,ril petitioner has supported the impugned judgment. He submits that though the description of the appointment lctter of lather of writ petitioner was of part time emplol,ee, he, in fact, worked as full-time employee during his service under appeilant No. 1- Zilla Parishad. Learned counsel hars relerred to extracts of attendance registers in the vacate petition in I.A.No.3 ol 2025 at pages 24 to 29, rvl-rich reiate to 200 1, 2O06 and 2O l3 to support his above submission. Apart from that, the 6 writ petitioner relies upon thc decision rentlered b1' :t Division ber-rr:h of the crstu,hile Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P.No.51)16 of 2O1i dated 06.12.2012 to support his CASC. 7 . We ha,. e considercd the submissions of r he learneC counsel for the parties B. Tht: nar ration of facts recorded above shr,,'.r's that the pctitioner's l,rther u,as engaged as a part-timr: emplolee under the al,,pellant No. 1-Zilia Parishad, u'orkc'd as such, ancl died ir-r -he 1-ear 20 15 rvithout staking any claim lor rcgularisatror r of his service. After his death, such a claim hns been rais;ecl br, his son, the writ petitioner. u'hich I'ras been dlrl-r' considered upon the directions of the learned Tril;unal in O.A.No.73 oi 2016 by appellant No.1--Zilla Parishad ancl rejected on the ground that the petitioner's lather did not lullil the eligibility critc':ia under G.O.Ms.No.112 dated 23.07.1997, as he had not completed tcn ,vears o1' s,:rvice on the cut-off date 25.1 1. 1993 from the dertc of his crrgagemcnt. The case of the writ pt:titioner in W.A.No.998 ol' )025 therefore squarely applies to the case of the present \.vrit petitioner. In the said case, ttris Court has also dealt with the plea raised b-r. the li rit petitioner therein b-v relf ing upon the dccision of the Division Bench ol the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P.Nc.59 l6 of 2O I I , yicle crcler dated 06.12.2012. The reievarrt discussion of the order dated i5.09.2025 in W.A.No.99B ol 2025 rs c:<tracted hereunder in order to avoid repetition: '8.....From a perusal of the ordcr passed in Writ Pctition No.59 16 ol 2O11 by the learncd Division Bench of crstrvhile High Court oi Andhra Pradesh, it appears th:rt the grici irncc of thc petitioner therein was in relation to the non payment o1' minimum waqes as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, as thc-y were treated as part-tirne Swcepers though working or.t full time basis. It was in those circumstances, the learned Divisior-r Bench referred to the order passed in Writ Petition No. 1045 of 2OO7 and dismissal of aloresaid SLP preferrcd b1, thc Mr:dical & Health Department against that. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.l/u,rit petitioner submits that the leamed writ Court was persuadcd by the reasoning and the view taken by the learncd Dii'ision Bcnch in Writ Petition No.5916 of 2Oll while granting the relicl as thc casc of husband o[ respondr:nt No- I herein rvas similar to that of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 therein. Therefore, upon the regularization of the services ol her husirar.rd, responclent No. I is entitled to compassionate appointment as hc had die d in harness. tO. We have considered the submissions of the lcarncd counsel for the parties and taken note o[ the relcvant pleaclings referred to hereinabove. In thc al)scncc of challenge to the ord(;r dated 22.10.2016 whereby the appellant rejected lhe clairr rf rcsponclent No.1 lor regularization of senices of her husbar-rd, the lcarned r,r,rit Court ought not to havc set aside the said order. Moleovcr, upon perusal of thc orclcr dated 22. 10.2016, it appcars that it has bcen passcd in compliirnc' with the orclcr dated 02.O8.2O'16 passcd in O.A.No.29()6 ol 201€i b1. the lcarncd Tribuna.l. The case of the husband :,f respolldenl No.l did not fall under tirc norms prcscribcd by the Ciovernrnent in G.O.Ms.Nos. 1 12 ancl 1 l8 rlatcd 23.()7.1997 ar-rd 18.08. 1999 respectively, sinc,e he was engagcd irr tiallr- as a p:rrt'timt: rvorkcr on O2.06.19ti6 ald hc had not c'ornpletecl ten (10) vcars continuous service prior to 25. I 1.1!)9.:. Lle hzrcl expired on 02.Ol.2016. Thc appellant thcrefort: r',rfuscd to allow tl.re claim of respondcnt No.l for regulerrization o[ scn,iccs of her husband. The order o[ rejectior.r. tllough llot under challengc, contaills valicl reasons for rejcctiorr of the claim ol rcgularization of thc sen/ices of husband ol respondent No. l. Regularization of the services of husbantl of respondent No. I could not be made as his case was not fe, lir-rg t'ithin thc scope of the above Gor ernment Orders. llr: claim of respondent No.I for compassionatc appointmcnt could not be considered as her husband. the pa-rt timc rvorker, could not be treated as died in harness as a regular emplo-vee. The learned writ Court thereby committcd crror. Therefore, r'e are inclined to interfere with in the ordcl passed by the learned rvrit Court.'

9. ln vierv of tl-rc aforcsaid facts and circumstance s of the case an(l the reasons recorded, we are unable to uphold the i:npugned order passed by the learned vr.rit Court, u,hcrcb-v respondent No.3/appellant No.1-Zilla 9 Parishad has been directed to pass orders for appointment of the r,r''rit petitioner on compassionate grounds alter setting asidc the order dated 25.O3.2O17 passed b-v appellant No.1-Zilla Parishad rejecting the claim lor regularisation of the service of petitioncr's father on the ground that l're did not fulfil the eligibility criteria under G.O.Ms.No. 1 i 2 dated 23.O7.1997 1O. Accordingly, the instant Writ Appcal is allovrcd. There sl-rali be no o;-clcr as to costs. Miscellancous applications pending, if an1', shaii stand closed- SD/-K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY' \ \ ECTION OFFICER To, Hyderabad Secretariat Buildings. T. S., Hyderabad '1 . The Principal Secretary, School Education Dept. Telangana Secretariat, 2. The principal Secietary, PR'and RD Dept. Telangana, Secretariat Buildings 3 o;e CC to SRl. PRADEEP REDDY KATTA (SC FOR TG ZILLA PARISHAD) 4 bne ci to sRt GURRAM sRlNlvAS, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES ll, High Court for the State of Telangana' toPUCl at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies BM BSW 6 * f s t i HIGH COURT DATED:06l1Atii025 I i t* d f , I JUDGMENT WA.No.752 of ,1,'.025 'rlL S 1i' )e .J ?+ t 04 t,l0tl P5 2 PAT CHEO ALLOWING TI.IE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS (ilrt--.- -'fiYntn t , , a i