Allowed

The State of Telangana v. M Balraj

Telangana HC21 Nov 2023TRCRLP/1092/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged an order making an interlocutory stay in a writ petition involving Village Revenue Assistants absolute. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that a single writ petition could not suspend a statewide policy affecting nearly 15,000 employees, while permitting the specific respondents to claim benefits under the policy.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 20.10.2023 passing the interim order absolute was set aside.

The State of Telangana Vs M Balraj — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST^DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND^{KUMAR SHAVILI} AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU^{RAJESHWAR RAO}

¶7

WRIT APPEA L NO: 1092 OF²⁰²³

¶8

writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters^{Patent preferred againstthe order dated} 2Ol1Ot 2023^passed in l.A.No.3^{of 2023 in w.P.No.2',\741ol 2023 on the file of the} High Court.

¶9

Between:

¶10

'1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by Special Chief Sec1gtary to the Government, Revenue Department,Secretariat,^{Hyderabad500022}

¶11

The Chief Commissioner Of^{LandAdministration NampallyStationRoad} Hvderabad 500 001

¶12

Tfie District Collector^{WanaparthyDistrict,}

¶13

The District Collector Jangaon^District,

¶14

The Tahsildar Kothakota^{[t/landalWanaparthyDistrict,}

¶15

The Tahsildar, Madanapur^{Mandal,Wanaparthy District}

¶16

The Tahsildar, Palakurthi^{[\rlandal,Jangaon O,.,r,L,.o"r=..oNTS/RESpoNDENrs}

¶17

AND

¶18

M Balraj, S/o Late^{Kistanna, Age 58 years Occ. Village RevenueAssistant,.} Ryo n. Nb. 18-54t2, NTR Colony,^{Koihakota Village and Mandal,Wanaparthy} District

¶19

K Shanthaiah, Occu Village^{Revenue Assistant R/o H No 18-15512} Raohavendra Colony Kothakota^{Village and MandalWanaparthyDistrict}

¶20

P ihandraiah, Occuvillage^{Revenus AssistantRl/o H No 21-44 Opposite} SBH Kothakota Village and^{MandalWanaparthy District}

¶21

P Srinivasulu, Occu Village^{Revenue AssistantRi/o H No 1B-188} Raghavend ra Colony^{Kotha kota Village and MandalWalapartjry} .qistrict

¶22

Gu6uloth Darsu, Oc6u Village^{Revenue AssistantRl/o H No 1-78 Mylaram} VillSgePalakurtiri Mandal Jangaon District

¶23

...RESpoNDENrs/pETt,oNERs

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the Highcourt maybe pleased to}

¶26

suspend the orders dated 10.08.2023^{in W.P. No.21741 of 2023 which are made}

¶27

absolute on 20.10.2023 in lA No. 3 of^{2023 in WP.No. 21741o'f 2023}

¶28

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI M.^{V. RAMA RAO,}

¶29

SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶30

Counsel for Respondents: SRI SRIRAM^POLALI

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

.rtr :':"-7

¶33

HON'BLE SHRI JI]STICII ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI ANI) H()N' BI,I,] SI I RI .I I]S1'ICE NAMAVARA Pt I IIA.IESI IWAR RAO

¶34

W.A.No.1092 ot 2023

¶35

JULGMe-\fT-f^{l'2rt ton'hh .\i} la.ttit^{.lbhinanlKmdr} Jhatili)

¶36

Aggrieved by the interlocutory order dated 2.0.10.2023 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in W.P.No.2174i 'r!^{2023 bv thc lcarncd Srngle} Jtrclge,,^{the prescnru rit}

¶37

:rnpcurl hzis bcr'n frlccl

¶38

[{card Sri Nf.,r.ltama Rao, lcarned Specral (iovernmcnt Pleader rrppearing for thc appcllants arrd

¶39

Sri Sriram PolaLi, learned counsel appearing for rhe

¶40

rcsponclcn ts.

¶41

Ir r-s the casc of thc aPpcllanrs that ihc Statc (lc>vcrnmenr has takcn a policl' dccision ro al:sorb rhc Village Revenue Assisranrs [.ME in the entire Statc t'icle

¶42

)

¶43

C).().)ls.\o.81, clatcd 24.01.2023 in^{the cadre o[-fur-rior} Assistant and lou,er post depending upon^the qualification posscssed by thc VRAs.^{Earl-ier, \rRA post} was an honorarv post. As 20,000 \rRAs^{working in thc} Stare, tl-rc Statc has come Lrp u,ith a policl'^{16 absorbsuch} of those ViLAs, rvho har.e lcss than 60 vears. In^respect o[ ''RAs, t'fro har.c aged 61 to 65 r,cars, thc State^has taken a decision to continue them as \rR-As and absorption was not extended to them as they^have crossecl the age oI superannuation. Ilor such /ILAs,^u,ho have crossed 61 vears, thc State has a taken a policy de cision [() exte nd thc Schcme oI Compassionate r\ppointmcnt and to that effcct, issued G.O.Ms.No.81, dated 24.07.2023. The respondents, who are aged 55 to 60 years have approached this Court by flling the preseflt W.P.No.21741 of 2023 contending that the Scheme o[

¶44

¶45

¶46

Cornpassionate Appointment can also be extended to them as the,v would also attaining rhe age of superannuation and those who are having 5 to (r years of senice, even i[ thc1,21. absorbcd, thc1, ry,r,r14 not ger full pcnsionary benefirs, as the Scheme of Compassionare Apporntment is providing to such of those VRAs who havc crossed 61 years and dcnying the same to the respondents would amounr to discri-n-rinarion and violation of Article 14 c.tf the (-onstirution o[ India. lnrtiallv, le arned Single Judge has suspendcd G.O Ms.No.S1, dated 24.07.2023 by order dated 10.08.2023 and in those set of circumstances, the appellants have filed I.A.No.3 of 2023 in W.p.No.21741 of 2023 to suspend the said order clated 10.08.2023 and the learned Singlc .[udgc disnrisscd t]-rc said petirion preferred by rhe appelianrs and made the interim ordcr

¶47

¶48

¶49

dated10.08.2023absoiutel{encc'thePresent\'r1t appeal.

¶50

Learned^{Special Government Pleader appearingfor} the appellants^{l"rad contended that ifG'O'Ms'No'81.,} datccl 24.()7.2023^{is sr-Lspcndccl,thc Starc is t't'rt in a} posirion^{to absorb nearl1' 14,954 \rl{i\s and it is a[[ecrinq} the \r1{,\s in^{the State and iithc respondcntsrvould} succced in^{rhe writpetition, theSche meoi} (.ompassionatc Appointmeflt^{can also be extended in} l'c-cpcct o[^{tl-rc tcsP()ndcnts also,and i[ the policv o[ dre} Stirtc 1s sLLspcnclccl,^{Lhc '1t'\s rvcluld bc put to irreparable} loss and rlearll^{14,954 /RAs could not tre absorbed'} . 'l'herclorc, a;lpropriatc ()rdcrs be passeil in^{the r'"'rit} appeal by^{setung aside the order dated 20'10'2023passed} in I.A.No.3 of^{2023 bv the lcarned Single fudgc'}

¶51

)

¶52

l,earned counsr:l appcaring Frrr tl-ie resp()ndcnts had contencled rhar rhc learncd Single Judgc was jusrified in making the interim ordcr as absolute and was also iustified^{in dismissing rhe vacare stay} petirion filed by the appellanrs.

¶53

Lcarned Spccial Cior.crnrncnr l)k:aclcr al.,puaring frrr. the appcllanrs had fairlv conrended that rhe rcspondents are agcd berween 55 to 60 years and er.en if rhe1, 21s absorbcd, they are purrlng 5 ro 6 years of servicc and the State is cxrending the Schcmc of Compassionate ,\ppointment in respect <;[ such o[ rhose \rRAs, who have crosscd^(r1 r,cars. lrr all f airncss tl-rc S rate rnav cxtend the Scheme of Compassronate Appointment thosc who have aged 55 ro 60 years als<r

¶54

¶55

'? .-:,

¶56

1 . l,cartlctl^coLrnscl ^PPCarlns^{lrrt thc: rcsP()ndcntshad} contencled^{that as the policv o[ thc State discri'nluates} R,\s,^{r,,,ho har-e crosscd(i1 Years'and} benveten^{t}-rc </sup> \rRAs,^{rvho arc less than 5 to 6 years of ser-vice' learned} G.O.Ms.No.81,^dated Single Judge^susPended 24.01 .2023:rnd^{no prciudice woulcl be causi:d i[ thc GO} LS ls susP^{encleclanci iIultimatelv thc r'vrit Pctltlon} in ftrnc^{rvith thc} ,1r.11i5 -s^{cd.Vl{.\s r.r,rl1 g;ct absorPuon} policy^{of the State' 'fhercfore'there are no merits in thc} writ petition^{and the same is Liableto be dismissed'}}

¶57

I lavrng^{consl(lered the rival submissionsmadcb1'} tl-rc learnccl^{cournsel on eitl-rcr side' this Court is of the} vrcu that^{rhe icarncd Singlc Judge ought not to havc} suspendecl^{the poLicv of the State uide G'O'MsNo'81'} dared.24.1.2023.If^{the policy of the State is susPended'} then it rcallv^{affectsi4,954 \rR{s and theirsen-iccs}

I I

could nor be absorbed because of rhe suspension ordcr passed by the leatned Single Judge. Therefore, ar rhe insrancc of five respondents the policy of the State cannor be suspended. Therefore, rhe order passed by rhe learned SingieJudge is hable ro be se r asicle.

¶64

,\ccordingly, rhc Wrir Appeal is allorvcd b1. serring aside the order dated 20.10.2023 passed rn I.A.No.3 of 2023 in W.P.No.21741 of 2023 by the learned Single Judgc.^IJorvever, it is made crear that if rhe respondenrs succecd in the writ pedtion, the Scheme of Compassionare ,\pp,rinrmcnr crn bc c.rrcndccr ro rhcrrr and it is open for the respondents to get absorbed in pursuance of the policy of the State or the respondents can also decline to get absorbcd or continue as VR{s till they atrain rhc agc of superannuadon. Learned Single Judgc^{shallad juclicarc} .hc rnartcr rvithrut bcir_rg

¶65

¶66

¶67

influerrccd^{blt anv o[ the obseLtationsmade by this}

¶68

Court.^{No costs'}

¶69

ittisccllaneous Pct1ttr)ns^{, ii an1', Penclingshallstand}

close^ci

sD/- K^sR'NrvtsrsR

//rRUE coPY//

sEcrrorfl6irrcen

r'' r rp; z The "1ffi Chief^{f Commtssioner 3's:,:i,T:f flGl! Of Land E*: i Admtntstrag #i-:; :::H]"J il:l :'::} - Hvderabad 500 001

¶75

i i[#,..ll,,,ggt-mfl5a,,rufi=,;:",.^{r.r,he s,a,e .r} Telanqana 9. The^{SectionOfficer' Writ Non ServiceSection' High courtfor the State of} Telanoana State^{or re rans a na roUrl} r o il'j8'^{i6. i" e t-} fff ili:f, 'dJiSi#rSJStTe 1 1 . One^{CCto Srl srlra} '12.Two CD CoPies

rVIBC c.rp,_1,/

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2111112023

1 1-e E ST4i. 6
(
J 0 i 0E0 20n u
La,
-t .at
D ;

¶80

JUDGMENT

¶81

WA.No.1092 of 2023

¶82

ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL

¶83

WITHOUT COSTS

The State of Telangana v. M Balraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Telangana v. M Balraj

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

G. Vasantha Vs The State of Telangana

S.Triveni Vs Smt. Karuna Vakati

The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Vs Rasakatla Madanaiah

B. Showraiah Vs B. Gopalu

Pashupathi Rao Vs The Government of India/Union of India

Sri.Birendra Sinku Vs The Member/Traction and Rolling Stock