High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Con circumstances stated in the affidavit filed pleased to issue an order or direction more of Mandamus to declare the action of the res of the petitioner to provide compassionate No A3l11546120'17, Dated 16-05-2017, of judgement of the Division Bench of this Hon dl. 06-122012, confirmed by the Hon,ble Sup of 2015, dt 14-05-2015, and the service ce dated 30-07-2016, as highty illegat, arbit principles of natural justice , equity and fai lmpugned Memo No.A3/1 t546t2017 , dt. 16-05 to provide the compassionate ap direction existing last grade post under the jurisdiction of his eligibility with ail consequenfly m titution of lndia praying that in the herewith, the High Court may be articularly one in the nature of Writ ondents in rejecting the application appointment by impugned Memo he 2nd respondent ignoring the ble Court in W.P.No. 5916 of 20'1 1 me Court in SLP (Civil) No. '15595 ificate issued by the Headmaster ary, u n constitution al against the play and prays to set aside the 01 7, of the 2nd respondent with a ointment to the petitioner in the f the 2nd respondent from the date etary benefits and also award exorbitant cost for driving the petitioner in suppression of the aforesaid judgments l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP NO: 29081 OF 20171 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the lmpugned Memo No.A3/ 1t546t2017 , dt.16-05-2017, of the 2nd respondent with a direction to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner herein in the existing last grade post forthwith, pending order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. CH. GANESH Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI G. NARENDER REDDY, SC The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITTON No 23524 ol2Ol7 ORDER: Petitioner is the son of late Rqiaiah, who was a Sweeper in the 2nd respondent iila Parishad Offrce. It is his case that his father was a Part-time Sweeper but worked full-time since 1988. Th ugh his father was eligible for regularization as per G.O.(p) No.112, F & P (FW.PC.IIr) dept., dated 23.07.1997, his se ces were not regularized due to delays on the part of e respondent authorities. After expiry of his father in 2016, the petitioner approached respondent-Zilla Parishad Ofh with a representation dated 13.02.2017 seeking appo tment on compassionate grounds as per G.O.Ms.No. 11 Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 18.08.1999. The 2nd respondent - Chief Executive Offi r, ZilIa Parishad, by the impugned order dated 16.05.20 7, conveyed that it was not possible to consider the pe tioner's request on the ground that the petitioner's fa er was not eligible for regularization as per G .Ms.No.565, Genera_l administration (seru"ice-c), dated

1.1O.1992 as he did not possess the required educatio qualihcations as on * { 2

25.11.1993, and as per G.O.(P) No.112, he had not \] completed 1O years of servrce.

2. Heard Mr. Amrith Raj, learned counsel representing Mr. Ch.Galesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Stalding Counsel for Zilla Parishad. Perused the record

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions on the lines of writ affrdavit, would contend that his father has been appointed on part time basis in the respondent-Zllla Parishad in the year 1988, and rendered 26 years of service. He further contends that his father rendered full-time services though he was under part-time category, and therefore his father is eligible for consideration under G.O.Ms.No.118, however he was not regularized.

4. Per contra learned Stalding Counsel would submit that the respondent authorities have considered the case of the petitioner as per the representation dated 13.02.2017, ald having found that the petitioner has not put in 1O years of service as mandated under G.O.(P).No. 112 and the I f 3 petitioner has not possessed the requisite educationa-l qualifications as on 25.11.199 i.e., the cut-off date as mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.01.L994 and G.O.(P).No.1 12, dated 23.O7 . 997, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate ap ointment was rejected, as his father himself was not a egular employee. Learned Standing Counsel further re s to the Memo dated

16.05.2017 issued by respon ent No.2-Chief Executive Oflicer wherein it was state that the father of the petitioner did not fulfil the co itions of G.O.Ms.No.565, G.O.Ms.No.2 12 and G.O.Ms.No. 18 and therefore his claim for regularization was rejected

5. Having considered the re pective submissions and perusing the record, it is pertine t to note that even as per the counter affidavit of respond nt No.2, the father of the petitioner was appointed in the ear 1988 as Sweeper on part-time basis. Further, it is not in dispute that the petitioner's father was still in SETVICC by the date of consideration of his case for re la-rization under G.O.(P) No.112, though he is stated t be not eligible by the respondents. Be that as it may, petitioner's father I I 4 I continued in service until his demise in the year 2016' It is the specific case of the petitioner that his father rendered full-time services though he was a part-time Sweeper' Petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P'No'5916 of 2011' which is a similar case where the respondents therein rendered full- time services though they were said to be "part-time"' ald 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 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C'C) No.1O63O of2011.

6. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner joined respondents' office in 1988 as part time Sweeper and worked till the date of his demise in 2016' The reasoning and the vievv taken by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.5916 of 2011, insofar as the claim of the petitioner herein about his father working full-time' is applicable to the case at hand. Petitioner represented to the respond eot-Zllla Parishad off,rce to appoint him on ) ) W 5 compassionate grounds on acc unt of his father's demise after rendering 26 years of servi

7. Having considered the re pective submissions, ald perusing the record, this Court of the view that the case of the petitioner deserves sym athetic consideration for compasslonate appointment an therefore deems it ht to exercise discretion under extrao dinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the nstitution of India B. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.05.2017 is set aside, ald the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.2 sha1l pass appropriate orders for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate gr ds, within a period of eight weeks from the date of rece pt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneo s applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall s d closed. That Rule Nisi has been mad absolute as above Witness THE HON'BLETHE CHIE JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL, FRIDAY, WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DA OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY F E //TRUE COP il SD/-N. SRIHARI EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER I To,

1. The Principal Secretary, PRandRD De t., Tel engana Secretariat Buildings, 2 T.S.,Hyderabad. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parisha , Karimnagar, Telangana State One CC to SRl. CH GANESH, Advocat (- U S o G t TWO P F H o H yd e ra ad tourl b \&3 Two CD Copies o ne Ct- to SRI, G STANDTNG COUNSEL [OPUC] loPUCl Court for the State of Telangana, at N R E N D E R R o R S E R DE D Et- Y S 4 i irF- S r"q I6: ( 13 tlJE 2U5 ( J{ Q 1. /., HIGH COURT DATED:30104t2025 ORDER WP.No.23524 ot 2O1t ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS