Dismissed

M. Babu Rao, v. The Deputy Director

Telangana HC14 Oct 2014WP/24744/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed two writ petitions seeking compassionate appointment for petitioners whose parents retired on medical invalidation. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that G.O.Ms.No.661 (2008) lacked retrospective effect for cases retiring on medical grounds before April 2002, though it left remedies open.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petitions dismissed; leave to file original applications open; no order as to costs.

M. Babu Rao, Vs The Deputy Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION Nos.24744 AND 24811 OF 2011

¶4

COMMON ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶5

These two Writ Petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are filed to call for the records relating to the order, dated 26.04.2011, in Original Application Nos.12481 and 12484 of 2009 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) and quash the same and consequently, direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider the services of the petitioners for appointment in the Last Grade Service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.661, General Administration (SER.G) Department, dated 23.10.2008.

¶6

2. Petitioners herein filed the aforesaid Original Applications to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein in not considering their candidature in the Last Grade Service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.661, General Administration (SER.G) Department, dated 23.10.2008, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, direct respondent No.1 to consider their case for appointment in the Last Grade Service.

¶7

3. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, came to the conclusion that G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23.10.2008, has no retrospective effect and dismissed both the Original Applications.

¶8

4. Mother of the petitioner in W.P.No.21744 of 2011 and father of the petitioner in W.P.No.24811 of 2011 were permitted to retire on medical invalidation by proceedings Roc.No.A1/563/2001, dated 15.02.2003, issued by the Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Eluru, West Godavari District. Both the petitioners seek appointment on

¶9

compassionate grounds in terms of G.O.Ms.No.661, General Administration (Ser.G) Department, dated 23.10.2008.

¶10

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions contended that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.56, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (MDL.II) Department, dated 02.03.2012, both the petitioners are entitled to compassionate appointment on medical invalidation and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

¶11

6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 contended that as G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23.10.2008, has no retrospective effect in respect of cases relating to retirement on medical invalidation, Tribunal rightly dismissed both the Original Applications and that order needs no interference by this Court.

¶12

7. It is not in dispute before this Court that as per G.O.Ms.No.504, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 30.07.1980, compassionate appointment can be given to son/daughter/spouse of Government Employee, who retire from service on Medical Grounds. The said G.O. was modified vide G.O.Ms.No.309, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 04.07.1985 and further it was modified vide G.O.Ms.No.214, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 09.06.1998. Ultimately all the above said Government orders were cancelled as per G.O.Ms.No.202, General Administration (Services -A) Department, dated 27.04.2002.

¶13

8. As on the date of retirement of the mother and the father of the petitioners on medical invalidation, there was no scheme of compassionate appointment. But, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.56, 02.03.2012 and G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23.10.2008. Insofar as G.O.Ms.No.56, dated

¶14

02.03.2012, is concerned, the scheme is available to those who retired from service on medical invalidation on or before 27.04.2002, whereas G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23.10.2008, is concerned, it has no retrospective effect because all the Government orders would be applicable prospectively only. Therefore, precisely that is the reason why, the Tribunal dismissed both the Original Applications and that order needs no interference by this Court.

¶15

9. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed leaving open the remedies available to the petitioners under law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these two Writ Petitions shall stand closed.

¶16

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶17

_______________ JUSTICE ANIS OCTOBER 14, 2014 YVL

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶19

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶20

WRIT PETITION Nos.24744 AND 24811 OF 2011

¶21

DATE:14.10.2014

¶22

YVL

M. Babu Rao, v. The Deputy Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Babu Rao, v. The Deputy Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Pesala Jayadeva Reddy, Vs The Special Court

Ch.v.v.R.S.N Murthy Vs The Commissionar of Collegiate Education Government of

G. Sheshaiah, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Visaka Industries Ltd., Vs Sri John Manoj

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Kasi Reddy Madan Mohan Reddy

Sayam Srinivas Vs Sayam Manjula