High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleasedtoissueanorderordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthenatureofWrit ofMandamustodeclaretheactionofthe3rdrespondentChiefExecutiveofficer, ZillaParishad,Karimnagar,inrejectingthepleaofthepetitionertoprovide compassionate appointment treating the services of the deceased husband of the petitioner as part tlme basis ignoring the recommendations of the High Power Committee / correspondence of the department and the confirmation orders granted by the Honourable'supreme court in the similarly situated cases of the colleaguesofthedeceasedemployee/husbandofthepetitionerashighlyillegal' unfair, unjust, u nconstitutio nal against the principles of natural justice and prays tosetasidetheimpugnedProc.No.A3//1/4o4t2o1g'dt.08/04/2019,withafurther direction to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner as per G.O.NIs.No.118, Finance and Planning (FW OC lll) Department dt 18/08/1999' treating the services of the deceased husband as ful time emproyee to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner IANO:1OF2 019 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to Suspend the impugned proc.No.A3//1/4041201g, dt. o8ro4r2o1g, with a further direction to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner in the rast grade post by ordering deemed regurarization of the services of the deceased husband of the petitioner as per G.O.NIs.No.21 2, dt.22lo4/1gg4 Counsel for the petitioner: SRt. CH GANESH Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR EDUCATTON Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2&3: Gp FO RPANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT The Court made the following: ORDER IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.26199 of 2079 ORDER: Petitioner is the wife of late Gunda Laxmaiah, who u,as a Sweeper in the l"r respondent-Schoo1. It is her case that her husband was a Part-time Sweeper but worked full- time since 1986. Though her husband was eiigible for regularization as per G.O.(P)No.112, F & P (FW.PC.lll) dept., dated 23.07.1997, his services were not regularized due to delays on the part of the respondent authorities. Alter expiry of her husband in 2019, the petitioner approached respondent-Zilla Parishad Office with a representation dated 26.O2.2019 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds as per G.O.Ms.No.118, Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 18.08.1999. The 3J'l respondent - Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, b.r' the impugned order dated O8.O4.2019, conveyed that it was not possible to consider the petitioner's request on the ground that the petitioner's husband was not eligible for regularization as per G.O'(P)No. ll2, F & P (FW'PC'lll) dcpt., dated 23.O7.1997,he had not completed 1O years of shrvice. ._- 1 \BK.J wP 26199 l0r9

2. Heard Mr. Ch.Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for 2111a Parishad. Perused the record

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, would contend that her husband has been appointed on part-time basis in the respondent-School in the year 1986, and rendered 33 years of service. He further contends that her husband rendered full-time services though he was under part-time category, and therefore her husband is eligible for consideration under G.O.Ms.No.118, however he was not regularized.

4. Per contra learned Standing Counsel would submit that the respondent authorities have considered the case of the petitioner as per the representation dated 26.O2.2O1g, and having lound that thc petitioner has not put in 10 years of service as mandated under G.O.(P).No.112, dated

23.O7.1997 , the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment \r,as rejected, as her husband himself was not a regular employee. NAK.J wP 26199 20 t9

5. Having considered the respective submissions and perusing the record, it is pertinent to note that even as per the counter affidavit of respondent No.3, the husband of the petitioner was appointeci in the year 19g6 as Sweeper on part-time basis. Further, it is not in dispute that the petitioner's husband u,as still in service by the date of consideration of his case for regularization under G.O.(p) No.l 12, though he is stated to be not eligible by the respondents. Be that as it may, petitioner,s husband continued in service until his demise in the year 2O19. It is the specific case ol the petitioner that her husband rendered full-time services though he was a part-time Sweeper. Petitioner relied on the ju<tgment of the Hon,lcle Division Bench of rhis Court in W.p.No.S9 16 of 2OIl, is a similar case rn,here 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 judgment of this Court in Wp No.1045 of 2OO7, which was upheld b-y rhe Hon,ble Supreme Court in SI*(C.C) No.1063O of 2ort. \ 4 \BK.J NP 16t99 20t9

6. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner jorned respondents' office in 1986 as part time Sweeper ald worked till the date of his demise rn 2019. The reasoning and the view taken by the Honble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.5916 of 2OI1, insofar as the claim of the petitioner herein about her husband working full_time, is applicable to the case at hand. petitioner represented to the respond ent-Zilla parishad office to appoint her on compassionate grounds on account of her husband,s demise after rendering 33 years of service.

7. Having considered the respective submissions, and perusing the record, this Court is of the view that the case of the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration for compassionate appointment and therefore deems it fit to exer.cise discretion under extraordinary jurisdiction ol this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of Ind ia.

8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.04.20 19 is set aside, and the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.3 shall pass appropriate orders for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds, within a period of NBK.J wP 16199 2019 eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order' No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if arly, in this Writ Petition, shall stand .to".O!Or- To, //TRUE COPY// M. OSMAN ALI BA'G STANT REGISTRAR S FICER

1. The Principal Secretary, School Education Dept., Telengana Secretariat Buildings,T.S., Hyderabad. Z. ine eriniipal Secretary, PR and RD Dept., Telangana Secretariat Buildings, T.S.,Hyderabad.

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Karimnagar District' 4. One CC to SRl. CH. GANESH, Advocate [OPUC] S. two CCs to GP FOR EDUCATION ,High Court for the State of Telangana at o. T,ivo CCs to'GP fOR pnruCHnYAT RAJ DEVELOPIVENT, High Court for Hyderabad [OUT] the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

7. Two CD Copies & B TKS HIGH COURT DATED:04tO7\ZO2S ORDER WP.No.26199 of 2O1g -1-' : |-r ,,., - \ :. .) u16sEP2 ' 'r -'' -- '\\-* ,--\.: -'i_------ (r,"' 025 .' t' ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS a