At the admission stage, the High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking directions for compassionate appointment. The Court directed the respondent department to consider a pending proposal within eight weeks.
Directed the 1st respondent to consider the proposal submitted by the 2nd respondent and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE ST t s,;;i,I i 3"I5 i ;oi i5,!3#S,fli A r HyD ERABAD
WEDNESDAY,TI
rw o iH o u Si, B.^r,.iJl#pil"o5g *,.-
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
Between:
WRI TP ETITloN NO: 8514 OF 2021
il;i#ii,i',i;,if .fi?,1;,[:li,?i,Tlr j'r?1#Byj,42years,occUn.emproyee,
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Articre 2.26 0f rhe constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fl"0 ilr"r",iiui,",n" High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or,direction ;_-p;;ili;;iy one in the nature of Writ of IVANDAIVUS, by decrarino the action or l".pona"ni. in not considering the case of thepetitionerfor compasJionatea p po intm e-rit-in-r'cco ro" n"e with Government order issued in G.o.rr/s.No.118, Finance ano etanning 1iw ec.ry o"pt, rit.ieloe)i'sgs ov passing appropriate orders on.the proposar ""-niov the 2nd respondentto the 1st respondent vide Note Fire Roc.No AJtioslzoto, ot.osloelzoto ii"r.', " "nli."o nv tllegal. the petitioner under RTr Act vide p'o..no..r.ro.illtrnttzozo,rit. r'i)oiliriii'j'i. ". forthwith ,arbitrary,unjust, impropenO .onruqr"n,y direci tfre responO#ts to .appointthe petitioner in tre otiilJ- oi't" zno *rpo,iounl"'rno", compassionate grounds in any suitabre t;; ;r per his erigibirity with a, consequentiar .benefits by passing orders on the proposar r"it oy the 2nd respondent to the'1 st respondent vide Note Fite Roc.No.4/1303/2016, ot.o'eldsizor o.
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under section'1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, ii,e-uigr, court may ue pteaseo to iirect respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appoinim""i i" ih; oiri"e ot 2nd respondent under compassionate grounds in any suitabre post as per his eligibility, in accordance with Governmeni order issued in G.o.lr/s.irlo.l r e, tinun"" and Planning (FW.PC.rrr) Dept, Dt.'18lo8/1 999, by passing orders on the'proposal sent by the 2nd respondent vide Note Fite Roc.irlo.A/1303/2016, dt.03/09i20i6 to thec 1st respondent pending final disposal of the main w.p, as otherwise the petitioner , be put to heavy and irreparable loss.
Gounsel for the Petitioner:SRl. K. ARVIND KUMAR
counsel for the Respondent No. i: Gp FoR MUNlcrpAL ADMINISTRATTON & URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRt. M. AJAY KUMAR, SC FOR KUDA
The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLESRIJUSTICEABHINANDKUMARSHAVILI IT IT N No.514ol 22
ORDER:
This writpetition is beingdisposedof ot the odmission stoge
with theconsent ot bothPorties
This writpetition is filedseekingthe followingrelief:
"..... toissue a Writ, order or direction'moreparticularly one in thenature of Writof MANDAMUS by dectaring the action ofrespondents in not considering the caseof the petitioner for compassionateappointment in accordance with Governmentorderissued in G'O'Ms'No 118'Finance and Planning(FW'PC.lll)Dept', Dt"l8/08/1999 by passing appropriateorders on the proposatsent by the2nd respondent tothe 1'! respondentvide NoteFite Roc.No.A/1303/7016,dt03lOg/2016(which is obtainedby the Petitionerunder RTI Act vide Proc.Roc.No.RTl/11l2O2O, Dt.1710112070\ is as ittegal, arbitrary, unjust,improper and consequenttydirectthe respondents to forthwithappoint the petitioner in the office of the2nd respondent under compassionategrounds in any suitabtepost asper his etigibitity withatt consequentia[ benefitsby passing orderson theproposat sent by the 2nd respondentto the 1't respondent v'ide Note Fite Roc. No.A/'l3 03I 201 6,dt03 /09/201 6 ......".
Heord Sri K.ArvindKumor, leornedcounseloppeoringfor the petitioner, leorned Government Pleoderoppeoringfor the lst respondent ond Sri AjoyKumor,leornedStondingCounsel oppeoring for the 2nd respondent,
It hos been contended bythe pelitioner thot his fother wos employed os doily wogeworker wlih the 2nd respondent on 10.02.1997 ond wos fully eligiblefor regulorizotionof his services,bui due to odministrotivelopses, his folher'sservices could no1 be regulorized. His fother expiredon 26.a7.2003while dischorginghis SiGs with the 2no respondent. The StoleGovernmenthos tokeno
)
policy decision vide eee wheren 'ide compossionoie'1he ::::,,:"^il;,.: '..:.: :'":,:'B donts of lhe deceo, empioyees, who ore erigibre ,o,. ,.nr,"," orizorion, bur -'^.r.,co ur od no rtto f be regurorized on occount of odminisrrot,u. ,^^"^^ .,::.".j:;*I,:j: .].#;::ffi ;::: ; o'ou'ou compossionole oppointment in his fovour in rerms or'o G.O.Ms.No. I tB doted 18.08. 1999. f he 2na resPondenl wos pleos to forword the proposol ro ihs 1sr respondenl on o:.op.zored 6. Bul, so for, the isr respondent hos not possed ony orders on lhe proposol submiited by the 2no respondent. Therefore, the leorned counsel oppeoring for the peiitioner hod contended lhol oppropriote orders be possed in ihe wrii petition direciing lhe Isr respondenf lo consider the proposol submiited by the 2nd respondent on 8.09.2016 ond poss oppropriote orders in occordonce wiih low.
Leorned Governmenl pleoder oppeorin g for the j,t respondent hod coniended lhot since the proposol submitted by the 2na respondent is pending with lhe isr respondent, the isr respondent would consider ihe some ond poss oppropriote orders in occordonce with low, within o reosonoble period of iime. This Couri, hoving considered lhe rivol submissions mode by the leorned counsel for lhe porties, is of the considered view thot this wrii petilion con be disposed of directing the Isr respondenl to consider the proposol submitted by the 2nd respondent on 03.09.2016 ond poss oppropriote orders in occordonce with low
i!
J
withjn oreosonobleperiod' preferobly within o periodof ejght
weeksfrom the doteof receiptof o copy of this order'
Withtheobovedirections,thewritpetiiionisdisposedof.No
orderos to costs'
PendingmlscelloneousPetitions'if ony, sholl stond closed'
EKHARRAO sD/-N. CHANDRAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR -,.
//TRUECOPY//
SECTIONOFFICER
To,
1 . The PrincipalSecretary'q3I9.UDDepartment' State of Telangana'
A,!"};;:.{;.,]"t,4'r+frfi [ifih:-["#it'-'B:,nDeve'pmen'iHshc'u*
PM -_t et
HIGH COURT
DATED:0710412021
ORDER
WP.No.8514 ot 2021
s
1 i,q i{.
I
o).l
O 2 7 APn 2021 (.')
* *
ai ^.4 C\T
Disposing of the WP Without costs.
(+\x:
.V
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should direct the First Respondent to consider the proposal for compassionate employment for the petitioner's father.
Whether an order is necessary at the admission stage of the writ petition to direct the concerned department to pass orders on the pending proposal.
What time limit should be specified for the First Respondent to consider the Dead Employees' Corporation proposal.
The Petitioner
The State of Telangana
Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Warangal District
Abhinand Kumar Shavili
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
