Allowed

The Government of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary v. Pittala Srinivas

Telangana HC4 Jul 2023WP/20049/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal which granted compassionate appointment to an adopted son. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in disregarding the petitioner's evidence that the applicant's transfer certificate listed the biological father's name, proving adoption had not legally taken effect at the material time.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 26.08.2014 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 3791/2014 is set aside.

The Government of Telangana, Rep. by its… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶7

THE HoNoURABLE SRI uusTIcfilITvTAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAo

¶8

WRIT PETlTION NO : 20049 OF 2015

¶9

Between:

¶10

1 _ The State of Telangana, Rep. by its principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department now named as' schedure cale oevetoprlni-o"p"rti*t,

¶11

^^{Telangana Secretariat Buildings, HyderabaJ.}

¶12

' ffi ,'r$::t,3inl?.",".^{xariilrias'ai-';"6rector'scomptex,Karimnasar,} 3. The Joint Director. 1T,.rl,W:lffr".Department now named as Schedule Caste Depa rrment, At coilec[o]s' Comprex, Karimnasar, xaiimna ga r

¶13

Bi.y;ii:rent

¶14

(Amended as oer court order dated 26-6-2015 vide wpMp. No: 24410 0F 2O15)

¶15

...PETIT|oNERS/RESPONDENTS tN OA.NO.3791/2014

¶16

AND

¶17

1' Pittara srinivas. Adopted-son of pittara Bahayamma, Aged about 3givears Unemptoyee, R/o H.'trlo.2-6_Bi, sr-ip""rilnilg"r, " sir"]td Vitf"&";jrri-'" Mandal, Karimnagar District

¶18

2.rheHon,brennon,u.p,,o'J5,Ei[,3i1?.t]I3ff#Ff,-J#Pni$"tr,3,ll?:,. Purani Haveli, Hyderabad.

¶19

...RESPONDENT Petition under Arti cle 226 of the Constitution of lndi a praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction morg particularl y one in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari,, calli ng for. the records relating to and connected with O.A.No.3791/2014 on the file of the Hon'ble Andhra pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash or set aside the order dated: 26{8_2014 in 0.A.No.3791/2014 by holding as erroneous and contrary to law. (WPMP. NO: 25861 oF 201s)

¶20

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the peiiuo;, [r,. iigr, cor.t n,rv o" p[r".d t" suspend the operation of order dt. 26-8-2014 in oA.tio.3791lzori pasle]ii tne the WP. flol'9t_.^{Andhra pradesh Administrative Tribunir,-*yderabad} pendiit a-irp"J"r "t

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioners : Gp FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : MS. KAVITHA p Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : None appeared The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HON BLE SRI JUSTICE ABIIINAND KI,MAR S]{A/ILI

¶23

AND

¶24

THE HON'BI ,E SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJES I{IVAIT RAO

¶25

I rrit Petition No.2OO49 of 2O15,

¶26

ORDER Z lPe " Iton'ble Justice Abhinand Kumar Shouihl

¶27

This w il petition is filed by the petitiortersr under Article 226 t f the Constitution of India r;eekinl: a Wnt of Certiorari b1 calling for the records relat n 3 to and connected rnith O.A.No.379l of 20 14 on th.e ile of the Andhra Prad:sh Administrative Tribunal, rrt Hydt:raba{ (for short, 'the T itrunal'), and to quash or set asitk: the trder i dated passed by tr<: Tribunal in O.A.No.379 l of 2t)lzl 26.O8.2014, t,y holding the same as err()rreolrs ald contrarv to 1z w.

¶28

Heard^th,: Iearned Government Plea<ler l'cr Services-I, for the petiti ir:ers and Ms. P. Kavitha, learned r ounsel for the 1"t respor r.dent

¶29

AKS,J & RRN,J wP_2OO49_2o15

¶30

¶31

Learned Government Pleader for Ser'""ices-I, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that the l"t respondent's mother, viz., Smt. Pittala Bayamma, worked as 'Kamatt' in Government Social Welfare Boys' Hostel, Chandurthi Village and Mandal, and later expired on 19.05.2010 while in service; thereafter, the l"t respondent has submitted an application to the petitioners seeking compassionate appointment, contending that the 1"t respondent ls adopted son of deceased employee, vlz Smt. Pittala Bayamma and adoption took place on 15.01.1986 as per the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956; subsequently, a notarized adopted deed was also made on 08.08.20O9; thereafter, the l"t respontlent I I I has filed O.S.No. 1 14 of 2010 before the Junior Civil Jt{dge Siricilla which was referred to Lok Adalat Bench at Sircilla; .vide^{Award datedO8.O7.2011, the Lok Adalat Bench at} Sircilla declared the l"t respondent as 'adopted' son of Smt. Pittala Bayamma by virtue of adoption document dated 15.01. 1986.

¶32

Learned Government Pleader for Services-l further contended that after passing of the Award dated

¶33

I\ KS,,] & RRN,] \vf 2O( 49_2015

¶34

¶35

Oa.O7.2O1l b'' the Lok Adalat Bench zLt Si-c:illa, the petitioners ha' e considered and rejected -he c er;e of l"t respondent ui le proceedings dated 19.0:;.2015 on the ground t.hat t rr: l"t respondent has not proc u cecl any document:rry e,'irlence in support of his adol;tio1: i; ggrieved thereby, the 1't respondent approached the liil:r-rnal by Irling O.A.No.3;'!r1 of 2OI4; uide order dat'rd 2.6.',)8.2014, the Tribunal rv ls pleased to allow the said C.A rrr lavrtur of the 1"t respond r:nt, ald directed the petitioners t I :orrsider the case o1 1"t rr,spondent for compassionat-e ap D, 'inr.ment and pass appr< oriate orders in accordarce v,ith liwi'.

¶36

5, Learnecl .]overnment Pleader for Servicr s I furrther t contended that the Tribunal failed to appreoate t ri rt thel I "t respondent har . rrbtained lOtt' Class Transfer Certificitte in the year 2012 rrnd in the said Transfer^{rlertili<'ate} , the narne of the I "t respondent's father was s It ]w r as 'Ma-llesham' inste ad of ?ittala Rajaiah'; if ttLe ttrr:ory o[ 1"t respondent is ' ,1 5s accepted that he was :rdopte:l son of the deceased-r rrr ployee, vrz Smt. Pittala Bay;rr-rma b5, virtue of a<lo rtion document dated 15.O 1.19116. the question of rel lecting the name of original fatlr<:r of l.t

¶37

AKS,] & RRN,J wp_20o49_2O15

¶38

¶39

respondent in the 10'h^{Class Transfer Certihcatewould not} arise; this fact was^{not properly appreciated by the} Tribunal, and the Tribunal^{had mechanically set aside the} rejection order passed^{by the petitionersvide Memoin} Rc.No.A2l253-A/2010^{dated 19.04'2014 ard allowedthe} O.A. by directing^{the petitionersto considerthe case of the} 1"t respondent for^{compassionateappointment;and} therefore, prayed^{this Court to passappropriate orders in} the writ petition^{by setting aside the order passed by the} Tribunal in O.A.No.379l^{of 2014, dated 26'08'2014'and} allow the writ Petition.

¶40

On the other^{hand, Ms. P' Kavitha, learned counsel} for the 1"t respondent,^{contendedthat the l"t respondentis} adopted son of^{deceased-employee,viz', Smt' Pittala} Bayamma by^{virtue ofadoption document dated} 15.01.1986, and^{the same was also upheldby the Lok} Adalat Bench,^{Sircilla uide Awatd dated 08'O7'2011; as per} the Award^{passedby the Lok Adalat Bench,Sircilla' the l"t} respondent is^{adopted son of Sri Pittala Raj aiah and} Smt. Pittala Bayamma^{by virtue of adoption document} dated 15.01.1986,^{and therefore,the Tribunal was justified}

¶41

\i. >,1 Er RRN,I \rr' ) .too49_2015

¶42

1n setting asir le the impugned rejection or,l3l. clated 19.O4.2O14 F,ar;s,:d by the petitioners and dirr:c:ed the petitioners tc! :c nsider the case of 1"t r,:spc,rLclent_ for compassionate tp,pointment; therefore, there are^-rr ) rnerits in the writ pet.it rtrr and the same is liable to he disrLissed

¶43

This Corrr ,^{having considered} the rival^{sut,n.Lisr;ions} made by the p arties, is of the considered view t 1ar the Tribunal wa-s ju stified in allowing the O.A. ir favc u r o[ the 1"t respondent, a.s admittedly the l Ottr C lass L ransfer Certificate of th : ["t respondent which was obtaine:l irr the year 2Ol2 refle< tr; the name of father of l.t^-espcn lent as 'Mallesham'ins errd of 'Pittala Rajaiah', which rrs,:[l' shou,s that there was nr> adoption taken as per ttLe lzLrv at that relevant point c l time; and therefore, the pe titior e^-s were justified ir:L rej :)c,ting the case of the 1 .' r€ s p,)nc[ent. Therefore, the 'I:ibunal could not have r;et a side the impugned reject i.on order dated 19.04.2014 :ass;rd b1 the petitioners and^, :rirected the petitioners to con sicl€ r r^-re case of the 1st resl ,oodent for compassionate approi;-rtrrLent. Therefore, the o: d:r passed by the Tribunal irL O.i,|io.!i79 1 of 20 14, datec 26.O8.2O14 is liable to l>e sr:t ar;ide.

¶44

AKS,J & RRN,J wp 2oo49_2or5

¶45

;:6::

¶46

¶47

Accordingly, the same is set aside. The Writ Petition is

¶48

allowed. No costs.

¶49

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if

¶50

any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶51

SD/- P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBA //rRUE coPYil ASSISTAUT REGISTRARrld.--''".^''

To,

SECTION OFFICER

1 The Principal Secretarv. Social Welfare Department now narned as Schedule secretariat Buirdinss,

¶56

f;iil"ro"?l'"opment^{Departmeni, iilft;'}

¶57

2 I*.'"$ft,ffitor'^{Karimnasar at collecto.s complex,Karimnasar,}

¶58

3 The Joint Director, sociar werfare Department now named as schedure caste Development Department, At Co,ecioris C".pi",.,'i<rrimnagar, Karimnagar

¶59

4 Two CC to Gp FOR SERVTCES I High courr for the State of Telangana at

¶60

Hyderabad (OUT)

¶61

1. OneCC to MS. I(AVITHA p Advocate IOPUC]

¶62

Two CD Copies

ADK

CJP ,/ (/

0 t

HIGH COURT

DATED : 0410712A23

ORDER

WP.No.20049 o " 2015

-::=:. -
i.<br>.,|
:u .$' t
o $'
LL (,..
\ ,(; ,
d
a
/,,,
| .) ili

¶71

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION

¶72

WITHOUT COSI S

¶73

s1c<br>

The Government of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary v. Pittala Srinivas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Government of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary v. Pittala Srinivas

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

A.P. Transco Vs Uma Devi Bethini

K M v S Kumar Vs Union of India,Scy,Finance,New Delhi,and 2

The Union of India, Vs Chattar Singh

Smt. P. Sumitra Vs Union of India Ministry of Railways and 2 Others

Union of India, rep by Vs B.Krishna Murthy (died as per L.R.)

K. Babulal, Hyderabad Vs Secy, Msme, New Delhi and 3 Others