Dismissed

Bhimavaram MUNiCIPAL, Commissioner v. Durga Bhavani

Telangana HC3 Jan 2018WP/45081/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Bhimavaram Municipality sought to quash an Administrative Tribunal order granting compassionate appointment to the legal heir of two municipal employees who died in harness, challenging limitation rules and alleged lack of representation receipt.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the grant of compassionate appointment was dismissed with the writ petition closed and no order as to costs.

Bhimavaram MUNiCIPAL, Commissioner Vs Durga… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

*** I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH**

¶2

*** HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE V.RAMASUBRAMANI AN AND * HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE M. GANGA RAO**

¶3

+ W.P.NO.45081 of 2017

¶4

% Date: 03-01-2018

¶5

# Betw een :

¶6

The Bhimavaram Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District.

¶7

….. Petitioner

¶8

And

¶9

Smt. Durga Bhavani, D/o. Late M. Padmavathi, R/o. D.No.15-5-70, Municipal Workers Colony, Bheemavaram, West Godavari District.

¶10

The State of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, MA & UD Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur.

¶11

The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, Belagapudi Guntur.

¶12

…. Respondents

¶13

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda

¶14

^ Counsel for Respondents : G.P. for M.A & U.D

¶15

< GI ST:

¶16

> HEAD NOTE:

¶17

? Cases referred

¶18

VRS,J & MGR,J. W.P.No.45081/2017

¶19

¶20

HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE M. GANGA RAO WRI T PETI TI ON NO.45081 of 2017

¶21

ORDER: ( Per VRS,J)

¶22

Aggrieved by the direction issued by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal to give compassionate appointment to the 1^st respondent herein, the Bhimavaram Municipality has come up with the above writ petition.

¶23

Heard Mr. Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality.

¶24

The case on hand is a very pathetic one. The 1^st respondent’s father, who was employed as public health worker in the petitionerMunicipality, died in harness in 1997. The 1^st respondent’s mother, who got appointed as public health worker, subsequently on compassionate ground, also died in harness on 14.06.2001.

¶25

Admittedly at the time of death of the 1^st respondent’s mother, the 1^st respondent was just 10 years old. Therefore, she claims to have made a representation on 02.11.2009 after attaining majority, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The 1^st respondent also filed O.A.No.8066 of 2012 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal gave an interim direction on 10.10.2012 to consider her case.

¶26

Pursuant to the interim directions, the Municipality considered the case of the 1^st respondent and rejected the same by an order dated 02.11.2012 on two grounds, viz., (a) that no representation dated 02.11.2009 was received by the Municipality; and (b) that as per the Government Memos and instructions, applications for compassionate appointment should be made within one year from the date of death.

¶27

VRS,J & MGR,J. W.P.No.45081/2017

¶28

¶29

Challenging the said communication, the 1^st respondent filed a second Original Application in O.A.No.2975 of 2014, since her first application O.A.No.8066 of 2012 was closed by the Tribunal immediately after speaking orders were passed. The second application O.A.No.2975 of 2014 was allowed by the Tribunal forcing the Municipality to come up with the above writ petition.

¶30

The grievance of the Municipality is two fold, viz., (a) that the Municipality did not receive any application on 02.11.2009; and (b) that an application for compassionate appointment should be submitted within one year, as per the rules in force.

¶31

Both the above grievances are wholly unsustainable. The 1^st respondent claimed in O.A.No.8066 of 2012 that she made an application for compassionate appointment on 02.11.2009. Even according to the birth certificate of the 1^st respondent, she would have just attained majority or on the verge of attaining majority. Therefore, she cannot be expected to take an acknowledgement from the officers in the Municipality.

¶32

The one year period cannot be put against the 1^st respondent, since she was just 10 years old at the time of the death of her mother.

¶33

The 1^st respondent’s father died in harness in 1997 and the compassionate appointment granted to the mother also did not survive for long, as the mother died within four years, on 14.06.2001 leaving a 10 year old daughter. If compassionate appointment is not meant for cases of this nature, it is better that such schemes are scrapped by the Municipality and the Government. Therefore, we find absolutely no justification for the Municipality to come up with a writ petition in respect of such orders. Hence the writ petition is dismissed.

¶34

VRS,J & MGR,J. W.P.No.45081/2017

¶35

¶36

petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

______________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN, J.

¶38

_______________ M. GANGA RAO, J.

¶39

3^rd January, 2018 Js.

¶40

VRS,J & MGR,J. W.P.No.45081/2017

¶41

¶42

HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN AND

¶43

HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE M. GANGA RAO

¶44

W.P.NO.45081 of 2017

¶45

3^rd January, 2018

¶46

Js.

Bhimavaram MUNiCIPAL, Commissioner v. Durga Bhavani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhimavaram MUNiCIPAL, Commissioner v. Durga Bhavani

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

The Prl.Secy., Home Dept., Hyd., and Another, Vs U.Sarath Babu, and 2 Others

Sundar Rao Vs Prl.Secretary (Revenue) and 5 Others

K Bramiahi Vs prl.secy.

Smt. K. Surya Kumari, Visakhapatnam Vs Secy Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 7 Others

M Hari Prasad and Anothers Vs Prl.Secretary ( Revenue) and 6 Others

The oriential insurance Co. Ltd. Vs High Court Legal Service Committee Rep by its Secretary