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 2011212022 passed in W.P.No.2468 of 2022 pending disposal of the Writ Appeal in the interest of the Justice. Counsel for the Appellants: Ms. M.SHALINI, GP FOR SERVICES-II Counsel for the Respondent: SRI ARVIND KUMAR KATA The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT :-.r.:{.=. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM h OSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CH,l. ,,A.PATI.II RAO WRIT APPEAL No.ll81 of 2025 JUDGMENT:/ per llon hlc Sri .[ustice P.SAlt KOSHY) lleard Ms.M.Shalini, leamcd (ioverntnent Pleader tor 'j r-r.iccs-l I. appearing lor tho appcllants and Mr.Arvind Kutnar Kata. leamed coutt ', I appcaring firr thc respondent and perused the record.

2. The instant is the Writ Appcal rvhich has bccn filecl asstii rrg the ordcr passcd by thc learned Single Judge in WP.No.2468 ol- 2022 dated 20 I t2()12 Though the ordcr rl'as passed on 20.12.2022. the instant appeal has beeu llltt ,rn 12.08.2025 alter about three years. lt has been infbrmed that thc appellants nie ar r hile had ar ailed the remedy of revieu' by prelerring review petition bclore the learrr, ci Singlc.ludgc vide rcvieu l.A.No.l of 2023 filed on 21.09.202-1 and disnri' cii on 26.06.202,1. Subsoquently, the instant Writ Appeal has been filed.

3. Wl'.No.2468 of 2022 was in lact the rvrit petition r'rhich i .rs lilcd u irh solitarl, reliel ol Mandamus to the appellants lor cotnpliance of an ortlcr I irssecl b1 thc lrndhra Pradesh Administrative l'ribunal (for short ''the Tribunal") in ( .A.No.7.1() of 201i. The said O.A. was disposed of on 20. 10.20 I I , whereb-v, the ' ribunal directed thc appellants to consider appointment of the respondcnt on compii s ionzrle grounds and to consider that the appointment of the respondent on i lular basis as pcr G.O.Ms.No.ll8. dated 18.08.1999. 'fhe order of Tribunal rvas r h.iecLed to challengc before a Division Bench in WI'.No.3971 ol 2012. wherebr the Division Bonch disrnissed the petition holding as under: 2 ? " Though the leamed Govemment Pleader for Services would contend that compassionate appointmcnt cannot now be directed after this long lapse of time as it would be opposed to the settled legal position in terms of caso-law, rvo are of the opinion that the saicl lcgal principle rvould have no application to the case on hand as the authorities. in their oun wisdont, dcemed it appropriate to provide compassionate appointmcnt to the I't respondent/applicant immcdiarcly aftcr his father's dcath. but to suit their own interests, thcy did so by providing him such cmployment as a NMR Bill issue now is only as to the regularization of such Collector. compassionate appointment uhich has matured over no less than 2,1 years." .fhe

4. Onoe the rvrit petition \\'as dismissed b1 the Division Bench on 23.10.2018, the State Govemment did not further pursuc \.\''ith tho rnatter and the ordcr olthe Tribunal affirmed by the High Court and thus attaincd flnality. The State Government choose ncither to lile ro,icu'petition nor thought it tit to challcngc beforo thc Suprcme Court. inspite of the rcspondent bcing awardcd with an order by the Tribunal in October, 201 I . Titl date it appears that thc ordcr has not been implcmentcd in its letter and spirit though more than one and half decadcs have been passed. 'l'he respondent meanwhile filed contempt petition on 21.09.1023. but. the appcllants again rejected the claim ofthe respondent. Still thcl arc not cornplying rvith the directions given by the'Iribunal and which rvas affirmed by the High Court. lt was then that the present WP.No.2468 of 2022 was filed seeking fbr implementation of the order of the Tribunal dated 20.10.2011. The limitcd scopc lor consideration before the learned Single Judge was whether the order dated 20.10.2011 has been complied with and if not what relief can be granted to the rcspondellt after the said order that was passed. The said Tribunal itself was subsequently closed and since then all the matters which were pending before the Tribunal stood transfcrred to the High Court and all said writ petitions of the cmployees were being entcrtained by the IIigh Court under Article :iv /' l 226 of the Constitution of tndia which led to filing of the present t rit petitiorl as u'ell. {Jndisputedly, the order dated 20.10.2011 has not been givcn ' l'lcct to as per thc directions of thc Tribunal Likervise, the ordcr of thc Writ CotrLt ;larily inr: thc order of the Tribunal also seems to have been tlot properll' adhcr d to bl lhc Stalc authorities in the course ol implementation and evcry tims the rcs rondent approached the authorities fbr thcsc ttvvo years, the olficers havc been rcpc rtcdl-v-' rcjccting tho salne corltrary to the directions olthe Tribunal as also by thc Hig t Court.

5. In the given factual backdrop, the impugtlcd order of thc l :arncd Singic .ludgc daled 20.12.2022 was passed and taking into considcration I c alirresaicl l actua I matrix. learncd Single Judge had made the following obscrvltiLr I t hile allorr ing the writ petition. "This Courl after going through the tnatcrial availablc i: t record and after considering the submissions made bl' bol I the counsels, is of the considered view to direct i : respondents to strictly implcment the orders passed by t r ; Court in W.P.No.3971 of 20i2 daled 21.10.2018 $'ithottt rr further delay as expeditiously as possible prelerably r'r'itlr I lbur (04) rveeks I'rom the date olreceipt of a copl of thc or,l, r of this Court."

6. Though thc learned counscl for the appellants tried to inr-.. css upon the Bonch with the fact that tho respondent under no circumstanccs catl c gi',,en bcncfits as ordered by the'fribunal or as ordered by the writ Court in WP.l! r l97 I ol 2012. Thc contention of learned counsel for the appellant-State is that s r :e the tather ol the respondent himself w-as not a regular employee when he died in t arness and rvas onll, N.M.R. which othenvise a temporary post. Therefore, the scrr c of compassionate appointrnent applicable upon the Government employees \4'oul(l rot havc been madc 4 appticable in the coursc of appointment of the respondent. She further contends that the respondent himself admittedly has been appointed only as N.M.R. and same was not invoking the schcme for compassionate appointment. I'hereforc. the respondent rvould not have been granted rclief of regularization as ordered b1, the Tribunal. 'l-he said contention of the appcllants rvas in lact a ground available rvith the State fiovemment whcn Lhey had challenged the ordcr passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.740of 20ll decidedon20.l0.201l inWP.No.397t o12012. Itispertinentto mention that all these aspccts that the appcllants are now raising are supposed to be raised rvhile arguing the mattor in WP.No.397l ol-2012. Evcn il it was not raised and challenged it cannot bc norv perrnittcd to be challengcd by r.vay ol present appeal. 'lhe order of Division Ilenoh dealing rvith thcse aspects and objection by the State alrcady stands reflected in para No.l3 rvhich has been reproduced earlier in this judgment. We are therefbre not inclined to accept the argumcnt raised by leamed counsel for the appellants.

7. Anolher reason for this Court declined to ontertain the ground raised by the appellants is on the ground that if thc argument so advanced by loamcd counsol for the Appeltant-State is accepted and thc order of thc learned Single Bcnch is set aside, it would literally amount to this Court sitting over the order passed by Division Bench of this Court in WP.No.397l of 2012. which otherwise is totally impcrmissible and rvould also be againstjudicial propriety.

8. Atlmittedly, the order dated 20.10.2011 in OA.No.740 of 2011 and the order dated 23.10.2018 in WP.No.391l of 2012 has not been implemcnted over the years and by elflux of time attained tinality. Therefore, it is the duty of the Courl to ensure -F7 5 that once an order is passed by the Shte unless it is stayed or luashcd by the higher forum, the order has to be complied with in its letter and spirir. \/e see no reason u,hy the State Govemment shurld not implement the said order, ,l rugh almost one and half' decadcs havc bccn passed from the l'ribunal alloucc the petition of the respondent.

9. 'f hus, in the opinion of this Bench the appeal was total [, uncalled for and the sarne dcserves to be dismissed. However, taking into considerr ion the peculiar lacts and circumstances under ivhich the order of the 'l-ribunal was l ssed and rvhich even got aflimed b1, the High Cour1. we make it clear that rr Ccr of the Tribunal dated 20.10.201I rendered in the case of the respondent shct d not bc treated fbr precedcnce. Each qucstion has to be looked into indcpendcr tiv in the fitcts and circurnstances ol each ol employee,s case. 10. With the albresaid observations, the Writ Appe r stands dismissed. As a sequel. misccllaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand i \ To, //TRUE COPY// One CC to SRt ARVTND KUMAR KATR, nOvocate 1&trr 1 IyJ":r"r:ii3&FoR sERvlcEs-ll, Hish court ror the { tate or relansana at Two CD Copies 2 3 A- BSR PMK Loscd. No costs. '' isd/-MoHD. tsMAtL 'il IPUTY REGTSTRAR __7_ $ecrroru oFFtcER HIGH COURT DATED:2811012025 JUDGMENT WA.No.1181 of 2025 I \ ',.',. \i' ..: DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL, WITHOUT COSTS (+ \L \,s\\ --): . iiir -:_-:\,- ,...-,-.:-\. i 4 i:C l$lt '' r]. -. - n'. ,\ \\. '. (,'.,t.. i il L,; t:: i .\ 't r1\l