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 pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in not regularizing the temporary appointment provided to the petitioner on compassionate grounds in theyear199oaSperGoMs.No.687datedo3l1ol1977andG.o.Ms.No.661' daled 23l.lu2o08 to till date by paying starving wages of Rs. 4000i- per month from 31 long years ignoring legitimate, wages payable to the petitioner as per Section13and15ofMinimumWagesAct'lg4SandSection4ofEqual Remuneration Act, 1976 R^/v Article 14, 16,21,39 (d), 43 and 300 (A) of our Constitution, as highly illegal, unjust, unfair and violation of the provisions of the said Acts and our Constitution and prays to direct the respondents herein to treat the petitioner as a regular one in the last grade post from the date of appointment by applying the principle laid by the Honorable Supreme Court in C.A. No. 6798 of 2019 dated 0210912019 in the case of Prem Singh Vs. State Of U.P. (2019 (1) SCC -516) and with further direction to release all the consequential monetary benefits of the last grade post w.e.f. 04/09i1990 to till date from time to time with 100 percent compensation on arrears of pay as per the principle laid by the Honorable Supreme Court in CA No. 3416-3445 of 201 0 dated 19t021201 9 in the case of Union of lndia Vs. Avatar Chand (2019 3 ALD SC 32) by awarding heavy cost. lA NO: 'l OF 2021 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 direct the respondents herein to treat the temporary contingent appointment of the petitioner provided on compassionate grounds on 04/09/1990 vide Proc. No. 81737190 dated 04/09/1990 by Sth respondent as per GO Ms. No. 687 dated 0311011977 and G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 2311012008 as regutar one in the last grade post forthwith by paying last grade time scale benefits to the petitioner with periodical increments from time to time. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH. GANESH Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES - ll Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5: SRI G. NARENDER REDDY, S.C. FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ The Court made the following: ORDER 1 wP_31330_2021 NBK,I THE HON'BL E SRI JUSTICE NAGES HBHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.31330 of 2021 ORDER: The case of the petitioneq precisely, as per the writ affidavit is that he was appointed as a Part-time Sweeper by the 5ft respondent-Mandal Parishad Development Officer on compassionate groirnds on 04'09'1990, due to medical invalidation of Mrs. Latifabee who worked as Sweeper at Chinnamadaram from 1970 to 1990. It is his grievance that his services have not been regularized/absorbed in the Last Grade Service and time-scale of pay has not been granted as contemplated under GOMs'No'687 dated O3.l}.lg77, and GOMs.No.661 dated 23-10.2008, in spite of rendering service for over three decades in temporary capacity.

2. Heard Mr. Ch. Ganesh, leamed counsel for the petitioner; and learned Govemment Pleader for Services-Il. Perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions on the lines of 3. writ affidavit. He draws attention of the Court to GOMs'No'687 dated 03.10.1997; GOMs.No.661 dated 23.10.2008; GOMs.No.3S, Finance & Planning (Fin.Wing - PRC VI) Department, dated 01 .02. I 980; GOMs'No'9, Finance & Planning (FW-PRC VI) Dept., dated 08.01.1981. He also relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Singh v' State of Upl and seeks a direction to release consequential monetary benefits from the date of appointment as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in Union of India v. Avatar Chand2. 1(2019) 10 SCC s16 , (2019) 5 SCC s97 j 2 wp 31330_2021 NBIC J

4. Leamed Govemment Pleader, on the basis of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.l, and also the counter filed by respondent No.4, contends that the petitioner is the grandson of Mrs. Latifabee, and there is no scheme for appointing grandchildren on compassionate grounds. Leamed Govemment Pleader contends that Mrs.Latifabee was not a permanent employee and therefore regularizing the services ofihe petitioner does not arise. It is also contended that GOMs.No.661 dated 23.10.2008 relates to medical invalidation with five years left for superannuation, and further the G,O., is of the year 2008 whereas the petitioner was appointed in the year 1990 and hence the G.O. is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. It is contended that GOMs.687 dated 03.10.1977 is applicabte only to regular employees, and the Scheme of Compassionate appointment does not speciff where the appointment can be made temporarily and so the averment of being temporarily appointed as contingent sweeper is incorrect. It is also contended that G.O.(P) No.l12 dated 23.07.1997 is for regularizing part time workers who worked for ten years as on 25.11.1993 and the petitioner does not satisry the conditions of the G.O.(P) No.l 12. It is contended that as per GOMs.No.l l8 dated 18.09.1999, the deceased daily wager,AtrMR should be eligible for regularization but was not regularized for administrative reasons, and in such a case such deceased daily wager would be deemed to have been regularized for the purpose ofconsidering the case ofregularizing the services of compassionate appointee, and the petitioner does not fulfil the conditions of GOMs.No.2l2 dated 22.04.1994 and therefore the wdt petition has no merit and liable to be dismissed.

5. Having considered respective submissions and perused the record, it cannot 6e disputed that the petitioner was appointed by the 5th respondent, vide lettEr$lo.Bl737l90 dated 04.09.1990 as a Part time Sweeper in the 3 wp_31330_2021 NBK, J Upper Primary School, Chinnamadharam in the place of Smt. Lathifbee, on a salary of Rs.250l- per month on a temporary basis. The order refers to the representation dated 08.01.1990 submitted by Smt. Lathifbee, and also the Application submitted by the petitioner in June 1990, and also the approval given by the Chairman, Mandal Praja Parishad vide letter dated 03.08.1990.

6. Admittedly, Smt. Lathifbee rendered services as a Sweeper from 1970 to 1990, and though it is sought to be contended that Smt.Lathifbee is not a permanent employee for considering the case of the petitioner under GOMs.No.687, it is to be noted that the petitioner was, admitteqlly, appointed way back in the year 1990, and he continues to serve in temporary capaciry even after three decades. It may be noted that GOMs.No.687 speaks of considering compassionate appointments in medical invalidation cases. When Smt. Lathifbee made a representation on 08.0i.1990 after having served for two decades, i.e., from 1970 to 1990, and her representation was considered in conjunction with the application ofthe petitioner in June 1990, the argument advanced by the respondents that Smt. Lathifbee was not under medical invalidation and that she left her job and went away, cannot be countenanced, as it is highly unrealistic and improbable to believe that an incumbent after serving for two decades runs away from job, that too by giving a representation.

7. At this juncture it is relevant to refer to the appointment order issued by the 5m respondent to the petitioner, which reads as follows: PROCEEDINGS OF THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MANDAL PARISHAD KANAGALU Present:Sri M.D.Bhadroddin, 8.A., Mandal Development Officer No.B7[37l90 Dt.04-09-1990. Sub: Establishmirnt-PrimaryEducation-Parttimesweeper appointment otder of Sri Md.Aezaz Ahmed, S/o.MD.John in U.P.S. Chinnamadharam-Reg., 4 wp 31330_2021 NBK, J Ref

1. Proposal No.5452lF-1-2184, Dt.07.'l'l 19A4 of concerned schools education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2.Representation of Smt.Lathifbee, letter dated 08.01.1990. 3.Application of incumbent dated .06.1990. 4.M.P.P. Chairman approval letter dated 03.08.1990. ORDERS: Vide reference 1't cited as per School Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad Sri Md.Aezaz Ahmed, Sro.MD.John, Employment Registration No.0980/82 is hereby appointed as Part time Sweeper in U.P.S, Chinnamadharam in the place of Smt.Lathifbee and he will be paid 250! per month, purely on temporary basis orders issued. The concerned Head Master is di.ected to inform the date of ioining of the said candidate in the school. sd/- Mandal Development Officer Mandal Praja Paiishad-Kanagal Copy to The concerned The Employment Registration Officei Nalgonda The Account Section The Stock file.

8. Further, the stand taken by respondent No.1 in paragraph No.7 of the counter affidavit stating that " after verification the District Level Oflicer appoinlt the dependent of the employee Le., only either lhe spouse or son or daughter but not a grandson whereas in this case there is no such procedure followed and the grandson is not eligible for compassionale appointment and no District Level Officer has passed orders, only the Mandal Level officer hos appointed him as Part time Sweepq and in that order also il was nol specified that it is compassionate appoinlment", cannot be countenanced as the alleged lapse in observing due procedure whatsoever, cannot act to the disadvantage ofthe petitioner. Further, as noted above, the appointment order dated 04.09.1990 of the petitioner makes a reference to the representation ofSmt. Lathifbee (dated 08.01.1990), and to the application of t[e petitioner (dated June,1990), and also to the approval given by the Chairman of the Mandal Praja Parishad (dated 03.08.1990); ar{ considering the same the 5th respondent specifically stated in the \ ' ;/. /\ -/ \ 5 wp 31330 2021 N8K,./ appointment order that the petitioner was being appointed in the place of Smt. Lathitbee; and therefore, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the petitioner's was not a compassionate appointment in the place of the then incumbent Smt. Lathifbee. 9 ' Furthermore, the argument put forth by the respondent authorities that there is no averrnenl in the writ affidavit as to whether the spouse (i.e.. husband) of smt.Lathifbee was a regular employee, or whether Lathifbee was regular, does not stand to scrutiny at this distance of time, as, admittedry, the respondent authorities have been utilizing the services of the petitioner for over three decades, and they cannot now take sherter under their own alleged procedural lapse to plead that petitioner is not eligible for regularization. Admittedly the respondents have not placed any material on record to show the authority under which they can continue an employee in a temporarylpart-time capacity for decades together and then take a plea of non-availability of clear vacancy or non-fulfilling of conditions mentioned in a Govemment Order.

10. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that the petitioner was appointed in the place of smt.Lathifbee, and his appointment had the approval of the chairman, Mandal Praja parishad issued on 03.0g.1990. Had there been procedural lapse in obtaining the approval of District Level officer, nothing prevented the authorities to have obtained the same at the earliest opportunity. Be that as it may, though it is contended that grandson is not eligible for compassionate appointment, the fact remains that the petitioner was appointed in the place of Smt. Lathifbee, undeniably after considering her representation and also the petitioner's application, and after obtaining approval of the chairman, Mandal praja parishad way back in the year r 990. These are matters ofrecord and thus cannot be disputed. That being so, after I { l l I I 6 wp 31330_2021 N8K, J the passage of over three decades and the utilization of the sewices of the petitioner throughout these years, the respondents are estopped from raising contention on the competency or otherwise of the 5th respondent in appointing the petitioner or the alleged procedural lapses of not taking approval of District Level Officer' In that view of the matter' the writ petition deserves to be allowed'

11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with a direction to the l't respondent to pass appropriate orders regularizing the services of the petitioner by granting minimum time-scale of pay from the date of regularization, in accordance with law' within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order' No costs' It is made clear that the petitioner shall be entitled to only notional benefits from the date of regularization to the date of this order; and he shall not claim any retrospective monetary benehts on account of this order' \ To, Miscellaneous Petitions Pending if any, sh{! slan-d- 9]999d, SD/.V. KAVITHA //TRUE COPY// DEPUry RE SECTION OFFICER Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad'

1. The Principal Secretary, Panchayath Raj Department' State of Telangana' ' 2. The Principal Secretary, Finance and Plannino Deoartment' State of Telangana, covemment Lf i"iiitii''f"tangini s"ecretdriat' Hyderabad' 3. The District Collector, ( Panchayats ) and Chairman of Selection Committee' Nalgonda, Nalgondal District.

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad' Nalgonda District' 5. The tr/andal Parishad Development Officer' Kanagallu Mandal' Nalgonda District.

6. One CC to SRI CH. GANESH, Advocate IOPUCI 7. Two ccs to GP for services-ll, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad [oUT]

8. Two CCs to GP for Finance & Planning, High Court at HYderabad. [OUT] for the state of relangana

9. One CC to SRI G. NARENDER REDDY, S'C' for Panchayat Raj [OPUC] 10.Two CD CoPies $ MP BS I rrw--W@ I /t I HIGH COURT DATED:2310112025 nE S1,r ,( (r ( 2I nr'i 2025 t D6 S r'., rC *(.o -l ORDER WP.No.31330 of 2021 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (9c'i'e 92A{(