Disposed

Arepu Mammutti, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Oct 2016WP/35623/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions seeking compassionate appointment for legal heirs of deceased Nagar Mahaldas were disposed of. The court directed the 1st respondent to consider applications under G.O.Ms.No.118 (1999) within eight weeks, disregarding a later 2016 order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 1st respondent to consider compassionate appointment petitions under G.O.Ms.No.118 (1999) within eight weeks.

Arepu Mammutti, Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶2

WP. Nos.35455 and 35623 of 2016

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

Heard counsel for the petitioners, the Government Pleader for Services appearing for respondents 1 to 4, and Sri N.Praveen Kumar, Standing counsel for 5^th respondent.

¶5

Petitioners seek compassionate appointment as legal heirs of their relatives, who worked as NMRs in the Grampanchayats which are predecessors of the 5^th respondent-Municipality. They had filed representations on 13.07.2013, 20.06.2011 and 05.04.2011, respectively, before the 5^th respondent seeking said benefit. They placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.118 Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dt.18.08.1999. They allege that their cases are not being considered by the 1^st respondent though their applications are long pending.

¶6

Counsel for the petitioners contended that G.O.Rt.No.566, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (D2) Department, dt.11.08.2016 had been issued by the 1^st respondent constituting a Committee under the Chairmanship of the District Collector to recommend the proposals with regard to regularization of services in the Municipal Corporations in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dt.22.04.1994 and G.O.Ms.No.118, dt.18.08.1999, but the said G.O. will not apply to the present case, since the petitioners’ applications for compassionate appointment were made long before the issuance of the G.O.Rt.No.566, dt.11.08.2016.

¶7

¶8

The Government Pleader for Services appearing for respondents 1 to 4 states that the said G.O.Rt.No.566 dt.11.08.2016 cannot have any retrospective operation and assures that the 1^st respondent will consider the case of the petitioners for compassionate appointment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.118 dt.18.08.1999 within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without reference to G.O.Rt.No.566, dt.11.08.2016, and communicate his decision thereon to the petitioners.

¶9

Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider the representations made by the petitioners for compassionate appointment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.118 Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dt.18.08.1999 within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without reference to G.O.Rt.No.566, dt.11.08.2016, and communicate his decision thereon to the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Revision shall stand closed.

¶11

21^st October, 2016. gra

¶12

_____________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J

Arepu Mammutti, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arepu Mammutti, v. The State of Telangana

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

Bathina Srinivas, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary to

Smt. Salapu Ramanamma Vs Sri Salapu Ramana

Nagothi Sreemannarayana Pathrudu, Vs Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

S.Rajanandam Vs State of Telangana

Durgam Sujatha W/o Rajanna Vs The Principal Secretary and Women and Child Welfare

Syed Ashraff S/o Syed Meera E. No. 30991, Driver (Retired) Vs The Depot Manager, Apsrtc., Medchal Depot