Disposed

M Ramesh v. The District Collector,(Sw)

Telangana HC23 Dec 2021WP(TR)/2/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner, whose father died while employed as a contingent worker. The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's pending representation submitted on 10.04.2011 and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

M Ramesh Vs The District Collector,(Sw) — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TW ,*o r;o r'.til,,otJ#J1R^{oJr"roF D EcE} MB E R

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶4

W P, TR NO. 20 F20 0

¶5

Between:

¶6

,i,,fl%,.83?,t"ii,"fji,;?!8]H,,?,:l:'",*i3 ffi Hl:j.fl":.,hil:nt,,,s1ffi

¶7

AND

¶8

...PET|TIoNER

¶9

The District Collector, (SW), Karimnagar, Karimnagar District 505001.

¶10

The Deputy Dlrector, social welfare Karimnagar, Karimnagar District s05001 3 The Government of Andhra pradesh, Rep. by rts principar secretarv, Social Wetfare Department, secretiriailiv;;ir'd;5 - E6o ozz

¶11

...RESPONDENTS

¶12

Petition under Article 226 oI the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to declare that the entire action of the respondents herein in not considering the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment as in any suitable post consequent on the death of his father namely M. LINGAIAH, who died while working as contingent employee in the 2nd respondent, in terms of the orders issued by the Government. ln G.O,lVls.No.11B F&P Dept. dt. 18.08.1999, while considering other person vide procgs. No.A217712010 dated 28.02.2O1 1 is as highly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust, improper, and colorable exercise of power and consequently to hold that the applicant is entitled for compassionate appointment in any suitable post in accordance with G.O.tr/s.No.118 F&P Dept. dated 18.08.1999 with all consequential benefits like SRI K. SRINIVAS, who was appointed^{vide procgs.} No.A2l77l201O dated 28.02.2011 of the l"trespondent.

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI^{A. MALAHARRAO}

¶14

Counsel for the Respondents: GP^{FORSERVICES - ll}

¶15

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEABHINAND KUMARSHAVILI} W.P.(TR)'No.2^{OF 2020}

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

This \Urit Petition^{is filed seeking the followingrelief:}

¶19

ro dccl!re^{lhai lhe eDli'clction ot lhtrcspondenlshtreinin not} consider;ng^thecrseoflhe a pplica^{ntfo rcomprssionste appoirt menlinany} suitsbtt^{post consequenioDlhe.ltrlhofhis fathernumtlv M'Lingsirh'who} dicd while^{$orking!s.ontingcnr emplolceid lhc2"r} 'tspo'dtDl' in rernrs or the orders^{issued bl lhcCor.rnment ioC O'\1sIo'IlE l' & P Dept'} dl, 1E.0E.1999,^{ehilcconsidoringolhcr penoo ri'lsprocgs No'A2/7?12010'} daicd 28.02.2011,^{ashi8hlvilleg!I,srbilrarr-' discrimjnatory' ut'iusl'} improper, and^{colorsble erercis€ofposcr Bndc0nseque,lllvloholdthrl} the applicrnl is cnti(led^{lor.onpalsionate.ppointB'nlin anvsuitableposr} in.ccord.nce $iih^{C.O.$Is.No.ll8l&l'Dept, dsted18.0E.1999 {ilhsll} consequenrisl benefit!^{like SriKSrinil!s,who lras appoinled,idsprocgs.} No.A2l7?,2010, dated^{28.02.2011ot thc l''16pondcnl and plss suchotber} order o. orders as thh^Hon'ble Courl^{m.ry deem fit rnd properin the} circumslsrces of the casc,"

¶20

Heard Sri A.Malhar Rao, learned counsel aPPearing for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-Il appearing for the respondents.

¶21

It is the case of the petitioner that his father was appointed as NMR worker during rhe year 1982 with the 2"d respondent. Though his father was fully eligible fot rcgolaization of his services, before his regularization, his father expired on 09.L1.1992. While so, the State Government has issr.red G.O.Ms.No.11g, dated 18.08.1999, whereunder a policy was taken to provide employment on compassionate grounds to the depefldants of the deceased NMR employees whose cases are pending for reguiarization. In pursuance thereot the petitioner has submitted a represenration dated ro.04.2oll to the respondents seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. But, so far, no orders have been passed theteon,

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that appropriare orders be passed in the writ petition directing the

¶23

respondents to consider the case of the peddoner for appointment on compassionare grounds in rerms of G.O.Ms.No.lLg, dated 1g.0g.1999. 05. Learned Government pleader for Services_Il appearing for the respondents contended that since the representation of the petitioner is pending with the respondents, the respondents would consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law,

¶24

Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation submitred by the petitioner on l0-04-Z1ll and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to state that the petitioner is also permitted to submit a representation afresh. 07. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶25

Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall also stand

¶26

closed.

¶27

SD/. B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTA|IT^REGISTRAR ' \//

,TRUE COPY//

SECT]ON OFFICER

To,

The District^{Collector, (SW), Karimnagar' Karimnagar District 505001'}

¶33

The Deputy^{Director, SocialWelfare Karimnagar' Karimnagar District 505001}

¶34

The Principal^{Secretary,Social WelfareDepartment'State of Telangana'} - i"It"iariui,'AYderabad : soo ozz

¶35

One CC^{to Sri A. Malahar Rao' Advocate[OPUC]}

¶36

Two CCs^{to GP for Services- ll' High Courtfor the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad lOUTl

¶37

Two CD^CoPies.

¶38

One^SPareCoPY'

T/P NPJ

HIGH^COURT

DATED:23t1212021

ORDER

W.P.(TR).No.2 of²⁰²⁰

H E S IA
i
.J 02 FrB 2S22
]
-t

¶46

DrsPostNG oF THE WRIT^pETtTtON (TR) WITHOUT COSTS

¶47

@*(t' w

M Ramesh v. The District Collector,(Sw)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Ramesh v. The District Collector,(Sw)

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

Jadhav Vasram Vs The District Collector and Chair Person Special Dsc 2011

Bandapalli Madhu Vs The Telangana State Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd. and 2 others

Dr. M.L.S. Ramakanta Rao Vs The State of Telangana

K. Subadra Kumari Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

V.Shruthi Vs The Superintending Engineer/Member Convenor

Gujjala Lavanya Vs The Superintending Engineer/Member Convenor