Disposed

Guda Pruthviraju, v. The Government of Ap.

Telangana HC2 Jan 2012WP/34310/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In six consolidated writ petitions, the High Court directed the District Collector to consider fresh representations from petitioners claiming compassionate appointment. Petitioners, whose fathers were killed by extremists, sought employment under Government Orders 469 and 504 after facing rejection or inaction by the Collector.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to make fresh representations; direction to District Collector to consider same and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

Guda Pruthviraju, Vs The Government of Ap. — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWELFTH

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶5

W.P. Nos.34307, 34310, 34318, 34381, 34668 and 34733 of 2011

¶6

Between:

¶7

W.P. No.34307 of 2011 Linga Ranjith Kumar … Petitioner And The Government of A.P., Rep.by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents W.P. No.34310 of 2011 Linga Ranjith Kumar … Petitioner And The Government of A.P., Rep.by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents W.P. No.34318 of 2011 Rangula Raju … Petitioner And The Government of A.P., Rep.by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents

¶8

W.P. No.34381 of 2011

¶9

K.Gandhi Rao … Petitioner And The Government of A.P., Rep.by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

W.P. No.34668 of 2011 Banjaram Sripal Reddy … Petitioner And The Government of A.P., Rep.by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents W.P. No.34733 of 2011 MD.Naseer … Petitioner And The Government of A.P., Rep.by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents

¶12

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶13

W.P. Nos.34307, 34310, 34318, 34381, 34668 and 34733 of 2011

¶14

COMMON ORDER:

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are claiming similar relief in all the writ petitions. Therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in all the writ petitions, the petitioners belongs to different families and their fathers were killed by the extremists. Consequently, crimes were registered in connection with the said offences.

¶17

As per the G.O.Ms.No.469, General Administration (SC.A) Department, dated 08.11.1996 and G.O.Ms.No.504, General Administration (SC.A), dated 11.08.2008, wherein the Government contemplated to provide the employment to a son or a daughter or spouse of any person killed in extremists violence or in police firing and also contemplating to provide employment to the dependent family member of any person killed in extremists violence who is not accused of any offence, respectively, the petitioners are entitled to the benefits provided under the said Government orders.

¶18

He further submitted that in all the cases, the petitioners made

¶19

representations to the 2^nd respondent, District Collector, but the 2^nd respondent, in some cases rejected their representations and in some cases no orders have been passed. Therefore, the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with the relevant Government orders issued, from time to time.

¶20

G.O.Ms.No.469, General Administration (SCA) Department, dated 08.11.1996, reads as under:

¶21

“In the Government order first read above, the State Government have issued orders enhancing the extratia relief to the victims of extremists’ violence and relief towards damages to proprieties. In the Government order second read above, the State Government have issued certain guideline’s among other things, for immediate payment of extratia relief to the next of the kin of the peons killed/injured it he extremist violence and relief towards damages to properties.

¶22

2. As a further measure of relief to the victims of extremists violence and also police firings, the Government have decided to provide employment to the son or a daughters or spouse of any person killed in extremists violence or in police firing. Accordingly, the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to public Services and Rationalisation of staff pattern any Pay structures) Act, 1994 (2 of 1994) has been amended suitably by an ordinance vide reference third read above.

¶23

3. The Collectors are authorized to issue orders in respect of any department where there is a vacancy for appointment of a person upon the level of junior Assistant/Typist depending upon the qualifications of the applicant. The concerned appointing authority will issue the appointment orders on the direction of the Collector. The Collectors are also authorized to grant relaxation of age on case to case basis.

¶24

4. The above orders will come into effect from 26.02.1996 i.e., the date of the Government order first read above.

¶25

5. All the Collectors and District Magistrates are requested to take immediate necessary action under intimation to Government, from time to time.”

¶26

G.O.Ms.No.504, General Administration (SCA) Department, dated 11.08.2008, reads as under:

¶27

“With a view to provide further relief, besides payment of exgratia, to the family of any person killed in extremist violence, who is not accused of any offence, Government have introduced a scheme of compassionate appointment to the dependent family members of the deceased civilians and in the G.O. first read above orders were issued authorizing the District Collectors to issue orders in respect of any department where there is a vacancy for appointment of a person upto the level of Junior Assistant/Typist depending upon the qualifications of the applicant. The District Collectors were also authorized to grant relaxation of age on a case to case basis. To enable these appointments provisions has also been incorporation in Section 4 of Act 2 of 1994. The said orders were given effect from 26.2.1996. In the G.O. third read above, orders were issued allowing minimum period of acquire requisite educational qualifications, period in which the minor can seek relief and relaxation of upper age/educational qualifications when the minor can seek relief and relaxation of upper age/educational qualification when the dependent family is seeking employment in the category of Class IV.

¶28

2. Government have been rejecting the requests for compassionate appointment in respect of the cases occurred prior to 26.2.1996. In a very few special cases/on the directions of the Hon’ble High Court, government have permitted the District Collectors concerned to provide compassionate appointment to the applicant of earlier cases subject to fulfillment of other conditions.

¶29

3. Government reviewed the matter and decided to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment to

¶30

the cases where the innocent civilians were killed by extremists prior to 26.2.1996.

¶31

4. Accordingly, Government direct that the orders issued in the G.O. first read above are applicable to the cases of killings of civilians occurred prior to 26.2.1996 also, provided that the age and educational qualifications of dependent family members seeking employment shall be satisfied as on the date of death of the respective civilians. Further, the concession allowed in the G.O. third read above area also applicable to the applicants.

¶32

5. Government also direct that the eligible applicants shall submit their applications to the District Collectors concerned for compassionate appointment under the scheme within a period of three months from the date of this order. Thereafter, the applications shall not be entertained.

¶33

6. The District Collectors/Superintendents of Police shall take necessary action to see that these orders are communicated to the families of extremist victims and obtain applications, if any, in time.”

¶34

From the above all, it is clear that the Government had extended the benefit of providing employment to the dependent family members of any person killed in extremists violence or in police firing and also authorized the District Collectors to issue orders in respect of those cases.

¶35

The claim of the petitioners is that their fathers were killed by the extremists and as per the said and other relevant Government orders, they are entitled to employment and the District Collector is not passing any appointment orders to them.

¶36

It is categorical submission of the petitioner that the petitioners have made representations to the District Collector, who some cases rejected and in some cases no orders have been passed. Therefore, the District Collector may be directed to pass appropriate orders.

¶37

In that view of the matter, without going into the merits of the case, under what circumstances the District Collector rejected some cases of the petitioners and in some cases no orders have been passed, I deem it appropriate to disposed of these writ petitions with the following direction.

¶38

These writ petitions are disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to make fresh representations to the District Collector furnishing all the necessary particulars like their educational qualifications, relationship with the deceased/injured, sustained injuries in the incident, damage of properties, relevant crime number etc., within a period of two weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and within four weeks thereafter,

¶39

the District Collector shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, taking into consideration the G.O.Ms.No.469, dated 08.11.1996, G.O.Ms.No.173, dated 26.04.1997, G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 04.03.1998, G.O.Ms.No.504, dated 11.08.2008 and other relevant Government orders issued, from time to time.

¶40

With the above direction, these writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶42

Date: 02.01.2012 LSK

Guda Pruthviraju, v. The Government of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guda Pruthviraju, v. The Government of Ap.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B. Ravi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its

V.Chinnayya Naidu, Vs Deputy Registrar of Coperative Societies

K. Prasad Vs Apsrtc.

Rambhadur Singh and Another Vs Prl.Secy Higher Edun. and 2 Others

B. Rajesh, Vs The Apsrtc, Rep. by its Managing Director

B. Madhu Mohan Reddy Vs The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd.