Disposed

Ch.Nooka Rathnam v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Sept 2022WP/25847/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the Municipality's refusal to grant compassionate appointment and death benefits. Court permitted the petitioner to file a fresh representation with necessary documents, directing the respondent to consider it within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to make fresh representation within 30 days; respondent directed to consider same and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

Ch.Nooka Rathnam Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.25847 of 2022

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶5

Constitution of India for the following relief:-

¶6

“ …to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in not appointing the petitioner as Sweeper on compassionate grounds in Tuni Municipality, is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to release the benefits such as PF, APGLI, GIS and Gratuity to the petitioner and appoint her as Sweeper on compassionate grounds in Tuni Municipality and pass such other order or orders … …. ”

¶7

The grievance of the petitioner is that her husband by name Musalaiah @ Dasu died in harness on 09.05.2022, while discharging his duties as Sweeper in the 2^nd respondent-Municipality. Thereafter, on 23.5.2022, she made a representation to the 2^nd respodnent requesting to release the PF, APGLI, GIS and Gratuity in her favour and also requesting to appoint her on compassionate grounds in Tuni Municipality. Pursuant to the above representation dated 23.5.2022, the 2^nd respondent has appointed Sanitary

¶8

¶9

Inspector as enquiry officer to conduct enquiry about entitlement of death benefits, family pension and compassionate appointment and submit his report within 3 days as third parties are claiming death benefits with forged documents. But so far no action has been taken by the respondents. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶10

No counter affidavit is filed by the respondents.

¶11

Heard Mr. V.V.N. Narayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. K.Sreedhar Murthy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 and 3.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s husband is the only bread winner to look after the welfare of the family from the income derived from his post, after his sudden death, the petitioner is unable to maintain herself with her minor children and she has no other alternative source of income. He further submits that unless death benefits are released in favour of the petitioner and appointment on compassionate grounds, she will be put

¶13

¶14

to irreparable loss and injury. Hence, learned counsel sought direction as stated above.

¶15

On the other hand, during hearing, learned Government Pleader has furnished instructions, vide Roc.No.90/2021-C1, dated 13.09.2022, wherein, it is stated that the petitioner has submitted an application for death benefits of her husband Ch.Musalaiah and also for compassionate appointment. However, it is to inform that without producing any supported documents i.e., Death Certificate, Family Member Certificate, No-Earning Member Certificate and Sworn Undertaking Affidavit from Family Members, she has filed the present writ petition. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶16

On a query put by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondents in that regard and prays that the respondents may be directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

¶17

Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, this Court deems it fit to permit the petitioner to make fresh

¶18

¶19

representation to the 2^nd respondent within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such representation being made by the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight (08) weeks thereon.

¶20

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is

¶21

disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶23

______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

¶24

Date : 15-09-2022 Gvl

¶25

¶26

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.25847 of 2022

¶28

Date : 15.09.2022

¶29

Gvl

Ch.Nooka Rathnam v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch.Nooka Rathnam v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr K Sreelatha Vs the Director of Medical Education State of Ap

Veeragandham Rajendra Prasad Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. Kolli Prasanthi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Katikila Moshe Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Gudivada Srinu Vs The Union of India

Mamilla Venkata Sudhakar Reddy Vs the Transport Commissioner