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 Dated 30.04.2025 in W.P.No.5240 of 2018 passed by the Iearned Single Judge of this Hon'ble High Court. =-*.7 !911sel forAppeilant: SRt pRADEEP REDDy KATTA (SC FOR TG ZTLLA PARTSHAD) Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : SRI CH.GANESH counsel forthe Respondent Nos.2 & 3:sMT M.SHALTNI, [-EARNED G.p FoR SERVICES - II Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : G.p FOR EDUCATION Counsel forthe Respondent No.5: G.p FOR REVENUE The Court made the following JUDGMENT : _ w ,4. THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESII KT'MAR SINGH AND THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOIilITDDIN WRIT APPEAL No. 998 of 2025 JUDGMENT: Sri K. Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel appears for the appellant. Sri Ch. Ganesh, leamed counsel appears for the respondent/writ petitioner. Smt. M. Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services-Il appears for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. Appellant - Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Vikarabad District, is respondent No.4 in the Writ Petition. Respondent No.1/writ petitioner is the wife of late Ramchandraiah, who passed away on 02.01.2016 while working at Primary School, Kompally, Vikarabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3. Respondent No.l filed Writ Petition No.5240 of 2018 with a prayer that the action of the appellant and respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein in not implementing the order dated

02.08.2016 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative I d 2 hC-l (A-lirs, J) & Gl'lM, J W.A.No.99a ol2D25 Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O'A.No.2996 of 2016, for compassionate appointment as per G.O.Ms.l'lo'118 dated

18.08.1999, is illegal, arbitrary and discriminalory. She has also praycd for issuing a direction to the zLppellant anci respondent Nos.2 to 5 hetein to appoint her on compassionate grounds as per G.O.Ms.No'118 dated 18.08.1999 by implementing the orders passed by the Tribunal in the aforesaid O.A. She has also prayed for consequential monetary benefits. 'fhe learned writ Courl allowed the satne vide order dated 30.04.2025, against which, the present WIit Appeat has arlsen

4. In the counter-affidavit filed before the vrtit Cour1, the appellant/respondent No.4 has categorically taken a stand in para 7 that pursuant to the order dated 02.08.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A.No.2996 of 2016, the appellant had passed a speaking order dated 22J02016 and communicated the same to respondent No.1/wr t petitioner as well as her Advocate. The said order was not challenged by respondent No.1 . I I I I i i I i , t i I I I I i I lti\f I t I I I I I t I i i I I I ,r 3 HCJ (AxrS, J) & GMM, J w.4.No.998 0f 2025

5. By the said order dated 22.10.2016, the appellant rejected the claim of respondent No.1 on the ground that her husband was appointed as part-time worker on 02.06.1986 but not prior to 25.11.1993 and thus, he had not completed ten (10) years of continuous service in the same cadre as per the norms in G.O.Ms.Nos.l12 and 118 dated 23.07.1997 and

18.08.1999 respectively. Therefore, the question of regularization of services of the husband of respondent No.1 did not arise. Hence, the claim of respondent No.l for her compassionate appointment was not entertained.

6. Without there being any challenge to the said rejection order dated 22.10.2016, the learned writ Court by the impugned order set aside the same and allowed the Writ Petition with the direction upon the appellant to pass appropriate order for compassionate appointment of \ respondent No.l within the stipulated period. Therefore, respondent No.4 in the Writ Petition being aggrieved preferred this appeal. , * 4 HC.J (AKrS, J) & GMM, J w.4.No.998 of 2025

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased was only a part-time worker and was n.ot eligible for regularization of his services as per G.O.Ms.Nors.2l2 and ll2 dated 22.04.1994 and 23.01.1991, respectively. Iherefore, his services could not be regularized. The cases ofdependents can be considered for compassionate appointment from the date of issuance of such regularization orders only when the services of deceased part-time workers were regularized. The husband of respondent No. I was not appointed prior to the effective date i.e., 25.11.1983 nor completed ten (10) yezLrs continuous service as per the nofins prescribed by the Govemment vide G.O.Ms.Nos.l12 and 118 dated 23.07.1991 and 18.08.1999 respectively. ln order to seek an effective relief, it was incumbent upon the writ petitioner to assail the speaking order dated 22.10.2016, by which, the claim for regularization of services of her husband after his death was rejected by the appellant. Even then, the learned writ Court proceeded to , I quash the said order dated22.10.2016 and further, directed the appellant to pass appropriate orders for appointment of respondent No.1 on compassionate grounds. I I I I i I I I ft, 5 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J w.A.No.998 of202s

8. On behalf of the writ petitioner, reference is made to the order dated 06.12.2012 passed by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No'5916 of 2011 and the order dated ll-01 .2011 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (CC) No' 10630 of 201 1' which arose out of the order dated 13'11'2009 passed in Writ Petition No.1045 of 2001 by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The said Special Leave Petition was dismissed on the ground of delay as also on merits' From a perusal of the order passed in Writ Petition No'5916 of 2011 by the leamed Division Bench of erstwhile High Courl of Andhra Pradesh' it appears that the grievance of the petitioner therein was in relation to the non-payment of minimum wages as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, as they were treated as part-time Sweepers though working on full time basis' It was in those circumstances, the leamed Division Bench referred to the order passed in Writ Petition No'1045 of 2007 and dismissal of aforesaid SLP preferred by the Medical & Health Department against that. I t I i ( I I l I I 6 HCJ (AKrS, Jl & GMM, J w.,q.No.998 oI2o25 r

9. Learned counsel for respondent No.l/vrrit petitioner submits that the learned writ Court was persuaded by the reasoning and the view taken by the learned Divrsion Bench in Writ Petition No.5916 of 20ll while granting the relief as the case of husband of respondent No.l herein was similar to that of respondent Nos.l to 4 therein. Thereforc, upon the regularization of the services of her husband, respondent No.l is entitled to compassionate appointment as he had died in hamess.

10. We have considered the submissions ol. the leamed counsel for the parties and taken note ofthe relel.ant pleadings referred to hereinabove. In the absence of challenge to the order dated 22.10.2016 whereby the appellant rejected the claim of respondent No.1 for regularization of services of her husband, the learned writ Court ought not to have set aside the said order. Moreover, upon perusal of the order dated

22.10.2016, it appears that it has been passed in compliance with the order dated 02.08.2016 passed in O..A..No.2996 of 2016 by the learned Tribunal. The case of the husband of f ( 7 HCJ (AKTS' JI& GMM' J W.A.No.998 of2025 respondent No.1 did not fall under the nonns prescribed by the Government in G'O'Ms'Nos'112 and 118 dated 23'07'199'l andlS.08.lgggrespectively,sincehewasengagedinitiallyas a paft-time worker on 02'06'i986 and he had not completed ten (10) years continuous service prior to 25'11 '1993' He had expired on 02.01'2016' The appellant therefore refused to allowtheclaimofrespondentNo.lforregularizationof services of her husband' The order of rejection' though not under challenge, contains valid reasons for rejection of the claim of regularization of the services of husband of respondent No.1' Regularization of the services of husband of respondent No.l could not be made as his case was not falling within the scope of the above Government Orders' The claim of respondent No'l for compassionate appointment could not beconsideredasherhusband,thepart-timeworker,couldnot be treated as died in harness as a regular employee' The leamed writ Court thereby committed error' Therefore' we are inclined to interfere with in the order passed by the learned writ Court. 8 HCJ lAKrS, J)& cMM. J W.A.No.q9E of 202.s f-\ i l I i I Accordingly, the order dated30.04.2025 ir; set aside and the instant Writ Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed To SA BS SE/.K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// ,',1\ ,,\ ECTION ER /_ Reddy District) Hyderabad. (OUT) While Ranga Reddy District) State of Telangana at Hyderabad. Buildings, State Of Telangana at Hyderabad.

1. The Princip_al Secretary, School Education Dept, Telalpana Secretariat 2. The Principal Secretary PR and RD Dept. Telangana Secretariat Buildings, 3. The District Educational Officer, Vikarabad District, Telangana State, (Erst a. ]he Dislrict Collector, Vikarabad District, Telangana State. (Erst While Ranga 5. Two CC's to G.P FOR SERVICES-II, High Court for the State of Telangana at 6. Two CC's to G.P FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at 7 Twg CC's to G.P FOR EDUCATION, High Court for the State of Tetangana at B. One CC to SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA (SC FOR TG ZTLLA 9. One CC to SRI CH.GANESH, Advocate [OPUC] 10.Tw_o CD Copies ('U PARISHAD) Advocate [OPUC] Hyderabad. (OUT) Hyderabad. (OUT) r ( \ ( \,.i'\ -l L') tl HIGH COURT DATED:1 510912025 --at:=- -,a'- :.flt' I i.,' , -\.'. ' .l\. -.-. ,,,...t' '9 " 22 StP Im * bF S' ,.1 , -" ', JUDGMENT I I WA.No.998 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.A WITHOUT COSTS. 1 8+ 2b )j