High Court · 2025

PetitionunderArticle226of|heConstltutionofIndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue writ or drrection lrlore particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of Respondents in not providing appropriate job as perthe provisions of the clause 2 and 3 of GO tr/s 469 GAD (SC-A) Dept, dt. 0B-11-1996 and G O.N/s 504 (SC-A) Dept Dt ll-08-2008 RAIV clause 4 and 5 of GO.Ms. 50, G.A. (Sc-A) Dept, dl 21-02-2014 read with Sub-Clause (b) of Clause (2) of section 4 of the Telangana (Regulation of Appointments of PublicservicesandRationalisationofstaffPatternandPayStructure)Act'1994 (Act2of1994)andalsoArticle14,16,zl,ofconstitutionoflndia,andalsoasper the ratio laid down in w.A.69 of 2012 and w.A.415 ot2012 consequently direct ../- the respondents to provide appropriate job in with above mentioned Provisions. State Government in accordance IA NO:1OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased to permitthepetitionertoamendthemainprayeraS,AlVENDEt)MAINPRAYER,'to issueWritordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthenatureofWrltofmandamLls declaring the relection vide l\4emo No 421938/2022 daled 19-09-2022 issued by Respondent No. 2 a-q arbrtrary and rllegal and agalnst the provisions of the clause 2 and 3 of G.O lVs 469 GA D (SC-A) Dept dt' 08-11-1996 and G O lt/s 504 (SC-A) Dept Dt 11-OB-2008 RAtu clause 4 and 5 of GO tr/s 50' G'A (Sc-A) Dept, dt: 21-02-2014 read with Sub-Clause (b) of Clause (2) of section 4 of the TelangTna (Regulation of Appointments of Public services and Rationalisation ol staffPatternandPayStructure)Act,1994(Act2of1994)andalsoArticle l4,16,2lofconstitutionoflndia,andalsoagainsttheratiolaiddowninw.A.69 of 2012 and w.A.415 of 2012 consequently dirept thp respqndgnls to provide qPpropriatejobinStateGovernmqntinqecoldangewitlrabgygngntianed provisions or tg pa$s any such other order or orders a9 this Hon'ble Cou( 1e:mE fit and proper in the circumstances of the case |NSTEAD OF MAIN PRAYER "to issue writ or direction more particularly qne in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of Respondents in not providing appropriate job as per the provisionsoftheclause2and3ofGOtr/s469GAD(SCA)Dept'dt:08-11- 1996andGO[t4s504(SC-A)DeptDt1l-o8-2OOBRAA/clause4and5of Go'IVs,5OG'A.(SC.A)Dept.c):21-02-2Ol4readwithSub.C]ause(b)ofCiause (2)ofsection4oftheTelangana(RegulationofAppointmentsofPublicServices and Rationalisation of staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act 1994 (Act 2 of 1994) and also Article 14.15.21 of constitution of lndia. and also as per the ratio lard down in w.A 69 ol 2012 and W A 415 of 20',12 consequently dilect the respondentstoprovideapproprlatelobinStateGovernmertinaccordanceWith above mentioned Provis ions IAN O:1 oF2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances in the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the. High Qourt may be plga direct the Respondents No 2 and 3 to cgnsider ,ff J"#::e-:tirt:1 06-09-2021 gubmitted before the Re9pondgnt No'2 a the ratio laid down in iudgment oaled23-02-2012 in wA 69 qf 2012' stated sed to dated. as per Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B'H'R'CHOWDARY Counset for the Respondentsl GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION The Court made the following: ORDER THE }ION'I}I-[. SRI.JT,SI'ICE T, VINOI) KTIM;\R \\'ltlT I,ETI'I'tO\ No.l t85 I of ?().12 ORDER: 'l-hc \\ r'it Pcririon is lllcd ri ith thc lbllori ing pr.ar.cr : ' ... declaring the inctction oI respontlcn/s in nci prot,itling c4tpropriate job qs per the provisions oJ the Clause 2 and 3 of G.O.Ms.No.l69 G.A.D. (SC-A) Departnent dt.08_ I1-1996 and G.O.Ms.No.504 (SC-A) Departmeni dt.ll_08_ 2008 r/w clause 4 and 5 of G.O.Mi.No.50, G.A. (Sc_A) Deparrment dt.2l-02-2014 read with sub-Clause (b) of Clause (2) oJ Section 4 of the Telangana (Regulation of Appointments of Public Seryic.es aruJ Rarionalizatutn ol sta/f Ptttt:rtt uncl Pd.r' Struc/t.trc) .1t:t. t99"1 (Act ) o/ l99l) untl olso 4rticle ll 16. 2l o/ the Oon.slitution of'lndict, ctrtd tiso tr: 1:L lltt r.trtitt ltticl Lhr.t 17 i17 ll.'.,1.\,o.61 o/ :tj l : unti il .1 \1) J/-i o/ )t),1 ) tott,,;,rltttntl). tlirc,tt tltL, r.t,,lton,lt,ttt: tr, 1tt'tttitit lllt \ltrti, ( iot.t,t.,t titt,nt ti ttr'o) t ,ttliL, trtlJt llit tthot t, t ) 1 t, t I / i t ) t.t i, (l l)rt)\ i\ ion.\ tol) ifi t)lriLlt,

2. IIeard lcar.necl Counsel lbr petitioners and learnccl Gor,ernment Pleader ibr Gcnet.al Adrnin istt.ation appear.ing on beh ail o 1- respitnclenrs. and perllsed Lhe record.

3. Shorn ol unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners in brief is that 1" petitioner,s grandfather and 2nd petilioner,s father_ in-law Sri Pasapu Narasiah was killed in extremisrs viorence on 2 l9-07- i9e0 . lnd thxt tire respotltlent atlthorlties havc paid exBratla amotlnt oi Et stlul o1 Rs l'00'000 - 4 respondent authorities have tssue( It is the turther case of the petitioners that subsequently' the ' I G'O'Ms'No'469 dated 08-11-1996 providing for employment to son or daughter or spouse of any person killed in extremist violence' and that the aforesaid GO was given effect ftom26'02-1996' 5. Petitioners further contend that since grandfather of 1't petitioner was killed after the date mentioned in the aforesaid GO' the farher of l" petitioner and husband ol the 2nd petitioner' being the son ol civitian killecl in extremist violence was required to be prot'ided u'itl.r emplo'vment in tert.t.ts ol G O Ms No 469 dated 03-i1-1996 lt is thc tunher cirse of'pcritiont'rs rhat l" peritioner's lather (). l'.I{aji l{eddl @-) Raju' rvho uas otheru'ise entitled to be provided with employment, had also diecl on 09-06-2020 due electric shock' and as the i't petitioner's father was not provided employment since the year 1996 in terms of G'O'Ms'No'469' and aiso subsequentl.Y under G O'Ms No'504 dated 11-il8-2008' the 1't petitioner's father is entitled to be provided with errployment' l.Itisalsothefurthercontentionofpetitic,nersthatthe respondent authorities not only failed to provide employment to the dependants ol: the deceased victim' but have also tbiled to pay additionai exgratia rnrount in. tcnlrs ol G'O lV{s'No 50 datccl I1-01-10l-1.

8. Learneil counsel lor thc petitioners rvor'tld l-a rlv sLibnrit that though the petitioners. bl thc preserrt Writ Petitiorr hacl sought tbr provision of emplovment, hor'vever in vier'v ol the older dated 31-01-2025':assed b1 this Court in W'PNo'192 5 ot 2022' are restricting rheir relief in the writ Petition only lor payment of additional ex-gratia amount'

9. Per crtntra,learned Govemment Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents u'ould submit that the amendment to Telangana (Regulation of Appointments of Public Serwices and Itationalizar ior.r of staiT Paltern ar.rd Pay Structure) Act' 1994 (ibr shon'thc.\cr') ro ir-rclLrcle uith ill its anlbit grand s'()rl (soll's soll)or e grand clluuhtct ( sotr's d'rughter'1 ol l gratrcl son itiept'ndclrl 4 daughter's son) or grand daughter (dependent daughter's daughter) as dependent is made in the year 2009, and since' the amendment is prospective, the same cannot be made applicable to consider his request for providing with emptoyment in respect of an incident tirut ltas takerl piace irr the 1'car 1996'

10. [.canlcd Cor ernrnetlt Pleader wor-r1c1 tirrther contend that since the l" petitioner being grand son of late P Narasiah' i'e' son's son. is not entitled to receive additional exgratia alnount as thc same is to be paicl to tamill members in terms of GO issued' which only includes son, daughter and spouse'

11. I have taken note of respective contentions urged t2. Firstly, it is to be noted that on the fateful day i'e' on 19-07-1996 when the deceased victim P'Narasaiah was killed in extremist violence, his son P.Raji Reddy @ Raju was a major and \\'aser-rtitlerltobeprovidedemploymentintermsol (].o.lVs.No,,169,Llou'ercr.theresponclentsexceptmaking pa)'rnent of exgratia alrourlt' did not provide any employment' 'l'herealter, c\cr1 ttpoll issr-ring (]'O Ms No'50'1 dated l1-08-2008 qir ing time o1- 3 tnontl.ts lor n.raliing application lbr provision o1' ) emplovmetlt to ihe latltlr t-lrctllbcts o1- decccscci r it:tittl rrlltl rl'ts killcd in ertrcnrist r iolence. r'r0 such clllplol ttlctlt $ rts ptovidcd lcl P.Raji Redd.v i.e. 1'' petitioner's f-ather. The respondent autholitics not onl)- did plor ide anr enlplo\rlldrlt Io 1" pctitiorlc"'s fatlrcr" t]io was eligil,'',lc- :br being provided u'ith erllplo)'nlcnt in terlns ol G.O.Ms.No.469 as well as G O'Ms'No'504, did not even make payment of additional exgratia in terms of G'O'Ms'No 50 dated 2i- O2-20t4 knou'ing very u'ell that there is no eligible 1'amily member ofacivilian,whowaskilledinextlemistviolencetotakeupthe employment.

13. 1'hough. it is contendecl on behalf of the r<:sportdents that l" petitioner': tather i.e Raji Reddy did not submit any application lbr pal ttrc-nt ol aclcliriorlal exgratia. it is lo bc tlolcti that as pcl G.O.\,1s.\o.5 (). e dtrt) is crst on the ar-rtholitics r iz ' thc [)istrict Co llecror /S tLperilttendcllL o1' Police to tal(c necesslll'\ aulioll 1(r 'ce that the alirrcsaicl otclct is c-otlrtllr;nicatcci to all lh'- lnrlrilics ol' civilians uho rvere l<illecl in extretnist violence ard rvho are not provided with employment and obtain applications within a period of 3 montl.rs for making the aforesaid paymert of additional exgratia. () ['hor-rgh. on bchall ol' respotlclenls it is contcnded that the ll. arirhorities har. itrs t'cc otll tlte tlded ibr payment ol ergratia to P Raji Reddy, son of deceased victin.r and P Anasuya' rvile ol P Raji Reddy and the i" petitioner herein being the grand son of P.Narasaiah, it is not shown to this Court the authorities making the payment of additional exgratia amount immediately after issuance of the G.O.

15. Though, on behalf of respondents it is contended that since the petitioners were seeking for provision of employment but not to re ce ir e additional exgratia alnoLlnt, and since the ernployment cor.tlci trot lre plor iciccl to the l'L petitioner herein being the grand sort ot the dcceased rictim as pcr the RtLles prei'ailing at the relcr at'tt point ol tit.uc irncl thc :\lllenchllent to Act l9c)4 beirlg prospective itl nature^ thus excluding the grand son i'e' son's son' the least the authorities could have done is to extend the monetary benefit in the form of additional exgratia to the son of the deceased victim i.e. P.Raja Reddy' father of the 1't petitioner herein during his lifetime' It is unfortunate that even 1't petitioner's father had deceasedon0g-06-2020leavingbehindhiswifeP.Anasuya, 2"'1 petitioner, the daughter-in-law of the Late' P' Narasaiah and son, the 1" petitioncl herein, r.r. ho in the considcrr:d r ier,' ot' this Court would be entitled to receive the additional exg;ratia atnount in terms of G.O,Ms.No.50,

16. Accordingly, ttre respondent authorities are directed to make payment of additional exgrtia amount in a sum of I(s.5,00,000/- to the 2nd lespor.rdent. being the daughter-in-law wife and the rvife of the son o1'the deccasecl victirrr. killcd in extrernist r iolencc. along rvith intcrcst ir- 89'n p.a. fl'onr the clatc of issuance ol G.O. till thc actual date ol paYntctlt. ll . Since. thc respondcnts b1 their irtaction cicnrir ed thc l'' petitioncr"' latl'rer ancl 2"'l pctitioner's husband c1'the additiorral exgratia till his death on 09-06-2020 due to rvhich the larnily has been put to turther hardship, this Court is of tht: view that the respondents are to be directed to make the aforesaic payment along with interest within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 18" Subject to above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No cos1s. 8 i9. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any' pending shall stand closed. ,',R?'I;$,]l[A A //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFF ICER To, Sec retariat, H PrincrPa lsecreta yderabad, 1 The 2 The District Collector and Magist ry. Sta te (P olitical), General Admtn of Telangana rate. Nizam abad, Nizambad District' istration DePartment' The District Collector and t\Iagist rate, Katna ReddY, Kama ReddY District' 3 RY. Advocate tOPUCI H ADMINISTRATION' igh Court for the State High Court for the State of Telangana at One CC to SRI B'H'R.CHOWDA 4 FOR GE NERAL 5 TwoC Cs to GP d tourl ngana at Hyderaba of Tela 6. lwo t Cs to qP FQR REVENUE' hiydera bad I 7. Tlvo eD Copieg BSR BS ,/ 2/ HIGH GOURT DATED: 1710212025 , ORDER WP.No.31851 of 2022 lHE $; r.q ( li-- zi riAB wi 3 o,'., i r'r,1, -i:=- ",.-*rt'.. +1r, DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS // /B ,/tr