Shaik lsmail v. against the orders passed by the Honble supreme court and

Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to consider the case of the petitioner-for appointment in any suitable post on compassionate grounds under medical invalidation scheme as per G O Ms No' 661, dated 23 '10.2008 by suspendihg the orders passed by the 3rd respondent .videproceedingsC.No.,l06Bt^112017-18(D.o.No.523/2018),dated16.04.2018 in the interest of justice pending disposal of the above writ petition' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.SURENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No'4: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI WRIT PETITION No.453O9 of 2018 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following relief: "...to issue an appropriate order or direction morc particularly a writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the 3.a respondent vide proceedings C.No.1068/Ai/2017-18 (D.O.No.523/2018), dated 16.04.2018 in rejecting the case of the petitioner for providing compassionate appointment on medical invalidation of his father without giving alry valid reasons, even though the petitioner is eligible for such appointment and in spite the fact that the similarly situated persons were appointed, as illegal, arbitral/, unjust, improper, discrimination, contrary to the rules, violation of principles of natural justice and against tie orders passed by the Honble Supreme Court and set aside the orders passed by the 3.d respondent vide proceedings C.No. 1068/ Al / 2Ol7 - B (D.O.No.523/20 18), dated 16.O4.2018 by further directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner in any suitable post on compassionate grounds under medical invalidation scheme as per G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23. 10.2008 in the interest ofjustice and pass..."

2. Brief facts: Petitioner Sri Shaik Ismail S/o Sri Sk.Chand, ASI (retd) submitted an application dated O4-O4-2OOS for employment on compassionate grounds (on Medical Invaiidation of his father). His father retired from service in December , 2OOl . District Collector (for short 'DC), Adilabad, by letter dated 09-05-20O5 referred the matter to the ofhce of Superintendent of police (for short 'SP), for further action. petitioner was appointed as Attender on contract basis for a period of one year on l 2 JAK,J W.P.No.45309 of20l8 consolidated monthly remuneration of Rs.2,600/-. Appointment was purely temporary, liable to be terminated without prior notice, to lapse at the end of contract period. Petitioner reported for duty on 25- 1 1-2005, (Ex.P6 Page No.24 of writ material papers).

3. G.O.Ms.No.246, General Administration (Service-G) Department, dated 30-05-2006 was issued withdrawing the scheme o[ providing contract appointment as Panchayat Secretaries and also to the posts in the last grade services' Services of petitioner stood discharged on 1 I-12-2006 in terms of the said G.O.

4. G.O.Ms.No.l24 (Panchayat Raj and Rural Development) Department, dated O2-O4-2OO8, w'as issued directing a1l District Collectors to reappoint all Panchayat Secretaries discharged from service. Petitioner submitted a 9-6-2008 to appoint him as Panchayat Secretary on contract representation dated basis in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.l24, dated O2-O4-2OO8 ' His case was considered and rejected.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in V.Sivamurthy's case (Civi1 Appeal No.421O of 2003) set aside the F\rll Bench judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court andidirected to revive the scheme of medica-l invalidation. G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23.10.2008, was 1! J JAK,J W.P.No.45309 of 2018 issued reviving the compassionate appointment scheme on medical invalidation.

6. Petitioner again submitted a representation to appoint him as Attender as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4210 of 2003, dated 12-08-20O8. His representation was forwarded to the DC, Adilabad. It was returned from the office of DC informing the office of Sp that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.661, datecl 23.1O.2008, appointment on compassionate grounds under the scheme of medical invalidation shall be made in the same department of the apphcant.

7. Petitioner Illed an O.A.No.45O7 of 2OOg in the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short APATJ, APAT passed interim orders on 20.O3.2OO9 to dispose of the representation of the applicant dated 26-|I-2008. Accordingly, the DGP, A.P., Hyderabad vide Memo No. 132 lME.3/2OO9, dated

22.1O.2OO9, disposed the representation and rejected the request of petitioner on the ground that there are no specific orders of the Government regarding applicability of G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23-1O-2OOB to old cases pending for compassionate appointment of the dependents of the employees retired on medical grounds. q I I 4 JAK,J W.P.No.45309 of 2018

8. The APAT disposed the O A No 45O7 of 2009' on 2g-Ol-2OIO with the obserwations that Government issued G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23-lO 2OO8' reviving the appointments on on Medical Invalidation and the regular appointment and directed to in any suitable Post as Per his compassionatc grounds applicant is entitled for appoint the aPPlicant qualihcation. g. W.P.No.23636 of 201O was preferred challcnging the orders of APAT. A Division Bench of the High Court by its order dated 21 .O2.2O12 set aside the order of Tribunal and dismissed O.A.No.45O7 of 2OO9 holding that petitioner was not entitled' lo.PetitionercarriedthemattertotheApexCourt,ApexCourt by its order d,ated 24'03'2O17 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.13747 ol 2013 dirccted thc respondents to reconsider the matter afresh withtn a period of one month Pursuant [o directions of Apex Court, petitioner made a representation for compassionate appointment' By order dated' 16'O4'2018 the 3'd respondent (SP, Adilabad) rejected the case of petitioner' the said order is under challenge

11. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the medical board recommended the retirement of petitioner''s father 0 5 JAK,J W.P.No.45309 of 20lE (on the ground of medical invalidation). That father of petitioner retired from service in December, 2OO 1 and petitioner was appointed on contract basis in Audit-B section of District Police Ofhce, Adilabad, on consolidated pay. It is further submitted that his services were discharged on I I .12.2006 pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.246. It is also submitted that petitioner made representation for appointment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.l24 and his case was not considered on the ground that G.O.Ms.No.124 was not applicable to petitloner's case.

12. It is submitted that G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23.10.2O08, was issued reviving the scheme of compassionate appointments to the dependents of government employees, who retire on medical invalidation. That petitioner represented for appointment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.661, steps were not taken to appoint petitioner and he approached APAT by filing O.A.No.45O7 of 2OO9. It is further submitted that APAT directed to appoint petitioner in a suitable post. That order of APAT was challenged by way of a writ petition bearing No.23636 of 2O10. It is also submitted that writ petition filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh was allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court. It is -.:.;v l-pointed out that order of Division Bench was carried to Honble 6 JAK,J W.P.No.45309 of 2018 Apex Court and the Honble Apex Court directed the respondents to re-consider the case of petitioner.

13. It is submitted that pursuant to directions of [{on'ble Apex Court, a representation was made and 3'd respondent by order dated 16.O4.2O18 rejected the representation of petitioner without application of mind in a routine and mechanical manner without considering the purport of the Honble Apex Court's order. It is further submitted that 3'd respondent rejected on instructions of 2"d respondent, 2"'t respondent followed instructions of 1"t respondent.

74. No counter affidavit is on record. It is submitted by Special Government Pleader for respondenis that petitioner was discharged from services and rightly so, as the appointments on compassionate grounds under the medical invalidation scheme of the government employees was put to an end vide G.O.Ms.No.246. That the contract appointment of Panchayat Secretaries and also appointment to the posts in the last grade services were withdrawn. It is further submitted that petitioner made a representation on 09.06.2008 to appoint him as Panchayat Secretary on contract basis in terms of G.O.Ms.No.124 dated O2.O4.2OO8, and it was rejected. It is also submitted that petitioner made furthel representation to appoirlt ; i 7 JAK,J W.P.No.45309 of20l8 him as Attender in terms of judgment of Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4210 of 2003. It is pointed out that representation of petitioner was returned on the ground that appointment should be made in terms of the conditions specilied in the G.O's i.e., in the same unit.

15. It is further submitted that pursuant to directions of the Hontrle Apex Court representation of petitioner was rejected by

3.d respondent by way of a detailed order considering the request of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the case of petitioner was examined with reference to the existing orders and instructions on the scheme of medical invalidation issued by government from time to time. It is lastly urged that there is no infirmity in Lhe rejection order passed, hence, no interference is necessitated.

16. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the submissions.

77. Petitioner's father was examined by Medical Board and Board recommended retirement on ground of medical invalidation, he retired from service in December, 2OOl. Petitioner made an application dated 04-04-2005 for employment on compassionate grounds (on Medical Invalidation of his father). .I 8 JAK,J W.P.No.45309 of 20lE DC, Adilabad, by letter dated 09-05-2005 referred the matter to the ofhce of SP, for further action. Petitioner was appointed as Attender on contract basis for one year on consolidated pay of Rs.2,60O/ - per month. Appointment was on temporary basis, liable to be terminated without prior notice and appointment was to lapse at the end of contract period. Petitioner reported to duty on 25.1 1.2005. Petitioner's services were discharged on

11.12.2006, he made representations for appointment, same were not considered.

18. Petitioner filed OA No.4509 of 2OO9 before APAT, OA was disposed of rvith a direction, a writ petition was filed by the state government challenging the order of Tnbunal, writ petition came to be allowed declining the relief to petitioner herein. Petitioner carried the mattcr to the Hontle Apex Court, the Honbie Apex Court directed to reconsider the matter afresh within a period of one month. Pursuant to the order of Apex Court petitioner made a representation, it was rejected on 16.04.2018 by the f,.a respondent (SP, Adilabad).

19. Perused the order dated 16.04.2018 of the 3.d respondent. Follorving is t.n. relevant portion of the order of the Superintendent of Police, dated 16.O4.2018: ( 9 JAK,J W.P.No.45309 of 2018 ".... The APAT disposed the O.A. No. 45O7/2OO9 filed by Sri Shaik Isrrrail on 29-01 2O1O with observations that the Government Issued G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23-|O-2OO8 reviving the appointments on compassionate grounds on Medical Invalidation and the applicant is entitled for regular appointment and directed to appoint the applicant in any suitable post as per his qualifrcation. A W.P.No.23636 of 2OlO was hled in the High Court of A.P., against the orders of the APAT and the Hon'ble High Court in its Notice dated 29-lO-2O10 observed that the first respondent i.e., Sri Shaik Ismail has given an undertaking tiat he would not claim any benefits retrospectively, as such it is made clear tlat in case he was given any employment, he shall be entitled for all the benehts from the date of appointment only. The issue was examined by the Govcrnment and concluded that t}le G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23-10-2008 wili have prospective effect and these orders are not applicable to the old cases and that, since, Sri Shaik Chand, ASI had retired on Medical Invalidation in the year 2001, the benefit of compassionate appointment on medical invalidation provided in G.O.Ms.No.661 General (Ser.G) department, dated 23-10-2OO8 cannot be made applicable to him and directed to contest the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble High Court has issued orders on 21- O2-2O12 In Writ Petition No.23636 of 2O1O hled by the department that, "Sri Shaik Ismail S/o Sk. Chand, ASI(retd) is not entifled to the bcnefits under G.O.Ms.Nos.202, 124 and 661, so much so, tJ:e discharging of Sri Shaik Ismail from his duties cannot be questioned. We are unable to appreciate the view adopted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal went by the revival of the scheme through G.O.Ms.No.661 dated 23- 1O-2OO8 considering it as retrospective. He has.no right of appointment as thc dependent of a government servant who retired from service on medical invalidation and consequently set aside the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the O.A.No.4507 of 2OO9 holding that Sri Shaik Ismail is not entitled to the declaration and direction sought". Sri Shaik Ismail had filed a special leave to appeal C.No.13747 of 2Ol3 witl. prayer for interim relief ald hearing before the Hon'ble Judge in Chamber on l3tr' November 2074. Tire Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 24-03-2077 has held that "the applicant was appointed i I l0 JAK,J W.P.No.45309 of 2018 by way of compassionate appolntment ald was subsequently discharged, even ttrough there is a scheme to permit appointment of heirs of retired medicaily invalidated employees, directing the respondents to re-consider the matter afresh with in a period of one month". Hence, tJle request of Sri Shaik Ismail s/o Sri Sk' Chand, ASI (retd) for providing employment on compassionate appointment on medica'l invalidation of his iather, is reconsidered in view of the directions oi the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 24-03- 2Ol7 and after examining his request with reference to the existrng orders and instructions on the scheme of medical invalidation issued by the government from time to Lime, his case is rejected. Sri Shaik Ismail s/o Sk.Chand, ASI (retd) should acknowledge the receipt of this order on the duplicate copy and return the acknowledged copy to this office immediately. . . "

20. It is observed from the order that except extracting the facts/events till the date of passing of order no reasons have been assigned whatsoever, in the order. There is complete non application of mind. Orders are to be embedded with reasons more so in cases of such nature, where the issue involved is related to employment. Independent application of mind and reasoning a-re totally lacking, in the last paragraph of order, it is stated that petitioner's request has been examined with respect to orders and instructions of the scheme, nothing is stated for the rejection. Reasons ane rational considerations for a conclusion, a process by which one reaches a conclusion. Reasons are the heart and sonl of r It JAK,J W.P.No.45309 of 2018 a decision. The order is a non speaking order and is bereft of reasoning, order cannot sustain.

21. For reasons aforesaid, the order is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. Needless to state that the

3.d respondent shall pass orders afresh on the representation of the petitioner earlier submitted, taking into consideration the applicable Government Orders and the instructions if aly as on the date of application (i.e., the application submitted before passing of the impugned order) with respect to compassionate appointment on medical invalidation at the relevant point of time. Proceedings shall be passed within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

22. Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. ! I That Rule Nisi has made Absolute asabove witness The Hon'ble SRI SUJoY PA[i it;i;'tiig'ciii"r Justice on this Mondav' the Twenty rniro oavli-Jln"l i*" i"tto'"and and Twentv Five' ,/TRUE COPY// SD/ -P. PONNA KRISHNA S 1STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 'l . The Principle Secretary, Home Department State of Telangana , Secreta riat Buildings, HYderabad,

2. The Director General of Police' State of Telangana' Hyderabad 3. The Superintendent of Police, Adilabad' Adilabad District' 4 The District Collector' Adilabad' Adilabad District' 5 One CC to SRI S SURENDER REDDY' Advocate IOPUCI 6 Two CCs to GP FOR HOME' High Court for the State 7 Two CCs to GP--FOR REVENUE' High Court for the Stat HYderabad [OU l1 Hyderabad IOU I I of Telangana at e of Telangana at 8 Two CD CoPies BSR BS W t t I t HIGH COURT DATED:2310612025 t t * .IHE SI' 2 5 JUL 2025 * sPril-Ctri ORDER WP.No.45309 of 2018 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS dRet: (& &'-