Allowed

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, v. Smt. P. Nagaraja Kumari

Telangana HC17 Nov 2016WP/36804/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Government of Andhra Pradesh challenged the Administrative Tribunal's allowance of a compassionate appointment application. The Court held the respondent was ineligible as the deceased official had a subsisting marriage and allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Smt. P… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE G. SHYAM PRASAD

¶4

WRI T PETI TI ON No.36804 of 2013

¶5

Betw een:

¶6

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to School Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others.

¶7

PETITIONERS

¶8

And

¶9

Smt. P. Nagaraja Kumar, W/o. Late Pathipati Muthaiah, R/o. Pullaiah Banjara Road, Kalluru, Khammam District, and another.

¶10

RESPONSENTS

¶11

VRS,J & GSP,J. W.P.No.36804/2013

¶12

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE G. SHYAM PRASAD

¶14

WRI T PETI TI ON No.36804 of 2013

¶15

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Ramasubramanian)

¶16

The Government has come up with the above writ petition challenging the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal allowing the application of the 1^st respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶17

Heard the learned Government Pleader for services (Telangana) and Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent.

¶18

There is no dispute about the fact that the deceased government servant married the 1^st respondent even when his marriage with another lady was subsisting. The deceased government servant’s wife was a teacher working in a Government school. Therefore, obviously the 1^st respondent was not entitled to appoint on compassionate grounds.

¶19

Though the Tribunal allowed the O.A only on the ground that the application for compassionate appointment is filed within the time, the question of filing any application by the 1^st respondent does not arise at all when she was not even eligible to make an application. When the very eligibility of the 1^st respondent to seek appointment on compassionate grounds, is not born out, the request cannot be considered. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside.

¶20

VRS,J & GSP,J. W.P.No.36804/2013

¶21

¶22

5. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

¶23

stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

__________________________ JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN

¶25

_______________________ JUSTI CE G. SHYAM PRASAD

¶26

17^th November, 2016 Js.

¶27

VRS,J & GSP,J. W.P.No.36804/2013

¶28

¶29

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN AND

¶30

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE G. SHYAM PRASAD

¶31

WRI T PETI TI ON No.36804 of 2013

¶32

Date: 17-11-2016

¶33

Js.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, v. Smt. P. Nagaraja Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, v. Smt. P. Nagaraja Kumari

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

Sri Suthari Ravindar, Vs Punjab National Bank

Additional Director General of Police Home Guards, Vs Kalangi Chalamaiah

K.V. Ramana, Vs The Union of India

Rathod Dhanraj Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mohammed Shaheer Zaman, Vs The Executive Council

M. Balagangadhar Tilak Vs The Commissioner