Sved Abdul Gaffar Shameem v. proper in the circumstances of the case

Heard Sri Mohammed Akter Shareef, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The titlon er a oroachedt he Cou rt amen ed Draver as u nder: "...to issue an appropriate Writ, more in the Nature of Writ Of Mandamus declaring the action oF the Respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for sanction of compassionate allowances in terms of Rule 41 of TS Pension Rules, 1980 vide the orders of the 1st Respondent dated 07/05/2022 Ref No. Memo No. 3774/Vig.R&B(l)/202r-2, Dt 07/05/2022 as being passed in a mechanical way without giving any reasons arbitrary and illegal violating the Articles 14 and 21 ot the Constitution of India and consequenUy set aside the same and further direct the Respondents to reconsider his case For the grant oF compassionate allowance considering the representation filed by him dated 09/ll/2022 and issue such . ." 3 he case of the oetitioner in brief as o r the oner i e affi avi b e res Writ eti s u nder: - 2 SN, J The petitioner was initially appointed as Ass stant Engineer in R&B Department and posted in Karimnagar C -cle in Zone V and services were regularized on 27.lI.lgBI.8,, 10.09.1994, the petitioner had completed the regular servic€ cf 15 years in the cadre of Assistant Engineer. Due to compellir 3 reasons and family problems, the petitioner applied leave wi :h effect from 21.10.1998 and 9ot it extended up to 20.0.f 2000. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner sought fcr the voluntary retirement from service but the same was rr: ected bv the Engineer in Chief on 28.03.2000. It is further case of the petitioner that the )etitioner was removed from service vide Govt. Gazette Notili ation No.296 dated 10.07.2000 stating that period of leave as't tes-&on,,. The Petitioner made detailed representations to the F ( spondents on 30.07.2021 and 21.03.2022 for sanction of ( rmpassionate allowances in terms of Rule 40 of TS pensior, Rutes, i980. Thereafter, the petitioner made further represer tation to the respondents on 09.11.2022 for the grant of said . )mpasslonate allowances. However, the same was rejecte(i vide Memo No.3774/Vig.R&B(1)/2021-2 dated 07.05.2022 Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had filed the present writ pr: ition. 3 SN, J

4. PERUSED TTIE RECORD. A The imDuoned order Memo o.3774lYio.R&B( 1) / 2021-

2. dated 07.O5.2O22 issued v the 1't resoondent to the Chief Enqineer (R&B) Admn., Hvderabad, Telanqana State is extracted hereu nder: - The attention of the Chief Engineer (R&B) Administration & Quality Control, Telangana State, Hyderabad is invited to the references cited and he is informed that the request of Sri Syed Abdul Gaffar Shameem, Assistant Engineer (R&B) (Removed from service) to sanction compassionate allowance is hereby rejected, as the case does not deserve any special consideration. B. Counter affi davit filed on behalf of the resoondents and in oarticular oara Nos. 16 & 18 are extracted hereu nd er- 16) Subsequently, 1" respondent vide Memo.No.3774lvi9.R&B(1)/2o2t-2 T,R&B (Vig.R&B) Department, Dt.07-05-2022 was rejected the petitioner request to sanction compassionate allowances, as the case does not deserve any special consideration and the same was informed to the petitioner vide 2nd respondent Memo. No. 3007/Ser .IrI.B(L) / 2022 Dt.27 -05' 2022. 18) It is submitted that, the petitioner had worked only 18 Years 7 Months and he is not eligible for Voluntary Retirement Service as he has not completed the required minimum service of 20 years as per Rule No.43 of Telangana Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Further, the 4 SN. J petitioner was removed from service for his r n-authorized absence vide G.O.Rt.No.509. T.R&B (S'1- j ) Department Dt.03-07-2000 and the same was publisht d in Andhra Pradesh Gazette vide Part No.296 Dt.10-07-i ( 00. c. Rule 4O of the Telanona tate PensionRg les, 198O is extra cted hereu nd er: - COMPASSIONATE ALLOWANCE: (RULE 4(l ) * A Govt. servant who is dismissed or -:moved from service shall forfeit of his past service. * Hence he is not eligible for pension and gre :uity. x If the case is deserving of special consider ltion sanction a compassionate allowince not exceedil I 213'o of pension/gratuity or both, which woulc have been admissible to him if he had retired on invalid )enslon. x Especially relevant documents shoulc send to AG Pension Office Provided that the authority competent t I dismiss or remove him from service may, if the case i: deserving of special consideration, sanction a compassior ate ailowance not exceeding two-thirds of pension or gratuity or both which woutd have been admissibl': to him if he had retired on compensation pension" DISC USSION AND CON CLU SION:- 5 Lea rned counsel a ooearino on behalfof t re petitioner mainlv conte nds that the oe t t roner was r n iti: ! lv aooointed as Assistant En I neer n BDeDartme ntE1rd posted to n aoar Circl e in Zone-V a nd servtcesof 1epetitioner Kari t 7 ) SN. J ad been r

7.LL.L98L a f f h rtllatll sl for 1O rrarrc in lha carl, ice cadrA the oetitioner was Dromoted as SDecial G rade Assistant Enoineer (R&B) and after comolet on of 15 vears of ervtce etition rw ecial Promo n of Assastant Enoineer on 1O.O9.1994 and due to comoellino re sons, the oetitioner was asked to ioin in CAD Division at Karimnaqar, the Detitioner apDlied for leave w.e.f. 21.1O.1998 initia llv but due to circumstances, which were bevond the control of Detition er, the same was extended to 2O.O4.2OOO. Later on. due to ill health and familv d asoutes, the oetitioner however could not er sou h for voluntarv retirement and to that e ect oetitioner duties an ++ael tation se kin ar rrzrl r r nlr but thesat d r uest of the Detit on er was reiected bv 2nd resoondent vide Memo No.488O8/SER.V(3)/97-1. dated

28.03.2OOO, thereafter. the etationer was removed from rvice vid Go ent Gazette Notification 29 1O.O7.2OOO statin etitioner's eriod of eave s "Dies-Non" 6 SN. J 6 rn dc u s ear n o alf of .! he oetitioner sub mits thatas oer the R ule 40 of TSPenstor R ules, ! 19 80, ita ner is e ti m to at: allowance, srn ce theoetitioner best ofoetition er n ti n rendered rvrce for 18 abititi es nd th D eGo er m t n rsa cti nof ars to the ition ( r add ressed

3. )9. 2021a d aqain on

1.03.2 22 c( t ND asslona te a lo an ces tn ter sof ul 40 of TS Pe nsi n _ tules. 198O. w er th t r e €:l had be I e te e an ca e I 2 2 ss d 1"t n e t I m u( ned _ rnd hence, DEtitroner isentitled for the rel ief as r tio er ln e w at e ra e J for bv the L n h f t f r t e s o av rmen a e in th u r h f f u! r e ti n r e e o d t n h r s o 6 n n s n d e n er for servtces-r a ed _ 'eliance on dav itfit d on n ,etiti n, h , as the l stderati n T a n w o c e n te I c n( t the sa me UC ted Memo Ll I i I t 7 SN. J No.3OO7lSer.III.B(1)/2O22. dated 27,O5.2O22 of the 2nd resDondent. Further, the plea is taken at the oara No.18 of h r ffi avl on behalf f the that the oetitioner had not comoleted the reouired minimum service of 20 vears as Der Rule No.43 of Te anoana Rev ised P ensro nRU les 1980 an d therefore. the netit roner's rearr.act Jetr G.a nction of cai rrr rtA G c i ar rt -ata allowances had been reiected. A bare oerusal of the imouoned order. dated I 07.O5.2(J22 onlv indicates one line of reiection order Dassed aqainst the oetitioner statinq that the Detitioner does not deserve for anv Soecial consideration. The reasons indicated in the counter affidavit resDondents herein do not reflect intheo er, imouqned filed bv the dated 7.05.2O 22 of the 2nd resoondent. Admittedlv. as borne on record , the same had been incor Dorated in the counter affidavit onlv to develoo the case of the resDondents herein, The iudqment of the Aoex Court in Mohinder Sinqh Gill and Another Vs. Chief Election d in (1978) 1 Commissioner, New Delhi and Others reDo 8 SN, ] s 4 and i r t o.l| of ts b

8.. The second equally relevant matter i that when a statutory functionary makes an order br:ed on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by t re reasons so mentioned and cannot be suppiemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otnciwise, an order bad in the_beginning may, by the time it co^ es to court on account of a challenge, get validated by ad,1 tional grounds later brought ,out. We may here draw at:ention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhani "Public ord ers, oubl iclv made, tn ( e f a th lan tio h orw ath e intende to, h u r n n tn his mind. ad b m nt I ot' o. tse ofa ucr( I in he li ht ,t he officer of what was ,ublic orders ha ve Du lic he _ actinqs and a,t dressed and rence to the ( e of th n e e e a e t d h o s d WI I Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow old er: Ta kino into con ideration the observi 1 :ions of the AoexCou rt int e Iu qment (referr above) this Cou !'t o I nes that he subi ct t s d extracted ssue in the rr r b v the 1"t resoondent herein. T k n 9 SN. J a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the tearned counsei appearing on behalf of the petitioner and tearned Assistant Government pteader for Services_I appearing on behalf of the respondents c) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents (referred to and extracted above) d) Rule 40 of the Telangana State Revised pension Rules, 198O (referred to and extracted above) d) Memo No.37 7 4 / v tg. R&B( 1 ) / 20 2t-2, dated 07.OS.zOZ2 issued by the l't respondent to the Chief Engineer (R&B) Admn., Hyderabad, Tetangana State(referred to and extracted lmpugned The above) Th rl P ti ni No.3 774/vtq. R&B (r l/2 h Itt r s n e s w d t o2 -2, d te 07. o5.2 o22 tssu d t- I n d v h o d t.T d tis di l0 sN, I reco nsider the recuest of the Detitioner for _ sanction of com Dasslonate allowances rn accorda nce o law, conformitv with ori nci les of natur al u stice. ! v providino f oersonal earino to the o< r..l itioner and an oD Dortunitv o 'iod of four oass aoDroDriate reason ed orders wi hin a pr (O4) w eks from the ate of receiDt of coov 1f the order and dulv communicate the decision to th(I petationer. Howev r, there shall be no orders as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending i I this Writ Petition, shall stand closed . SD/. I..G. VYJAYANTHI ISI ANT REGISTRAR a -----< //TRUE COPY// I; :CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary Roads and buildings Department, S ecretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

2. The Chief Engineer, (R & B) Administration and QC, Erranrr nzil Hyderabad. 3. One CC to SRI MOHAIVIIVIED AKHTER SHAREEF, Advoc r e [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES l, High Court for the Stat-. of Telangana at Hyderabad . [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies PMK TKS w HIGH COURT cc ToDr,'/ DATED:1011112025 -{E c\t o 1 I Aefl 21)$ {\- .i._ -, ,raf_\ ORDER WP.No.44252 of 2022 ALLOWING THEIWRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,{ eA 4, .e