Dismissed

C.E.O.,the Zilla Praja Parishad, Sangareddy,Medak Dist v. D.Ramesh, and 4 Others

Telangana HC5 Jul 2023WP/27125/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by Zilla Praja Parishad challenging the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal order dated 28.3.2014 which set aside rejection proceedings and directed consideration of a respondent's claim for compassionate appointment. The High Court dismissed the petition, refusing to interfere with the Tribunal's order.

What the court decided

AI extract

C.E.O.,the Zilla Praja Parishad, Sangareddy,Medak… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[3318 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH^{DAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE THE^{ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI} AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO}

¶6

WRIT PETITIO^{N NO.271250F 2014}

¶7

Between:

¶8

The Zilla Praja Parishad,^{I,4edakDistrict'} HQ at SangareddY, ReP.^{bY its Chief} Executive officer

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 D.Ramesh, S/o.^{Veeraiah,Aged about 34 years,Occ:Unemployee,} F/o.Peddapur Village,^{Sadashivpet, Medak District}

¶12

2 The State of Telangana,^{rep. by Principal Secretaryto Government,PR and} RD Department, Secretariat^{Buildings, Hyderabad}

¶13

a The Siate of Telangana,^{rep. by its Special Secretary, GAD Department,} Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶14

4 The Commissioner,^{PanchayatRaj Department,Urdugally, Hyderabad}

¶15

The District Collector, Medak^{HQ at Sangareddy.Sangareddy.}

¶16

5 The District Collector, Medak^{HQ at Sangareddy.Sangareddy.} (Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are formal^parties)

¶17

...RES'.NDENTS

¶18

Petition under^{Article 226 of the constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiled therewith, the High court may be} pleased to issue a writ order or^{direction more particularlyone in the nature of.writ} if mandarrs by^{declaring the orderspassedby the Andhra pradesh} Administrative^{Tribunal, in oA.No.1 10812011 daled 28.3.2014as illegal, arbitrary.}

¶19

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP.^{NO: 33919OF 2014)}

¶20

Pe{itio" ,"d", section^{t st cPC prayingthat in} .^{the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High court maybe pleased to} sr"penA the operation^{oi the ordersin OA.No.110812011daled 28.3.2014 passed} by t'he AP Administrative^{Tribunal, pending final dsposal of the writ Petition.} Cbunsel for the^{Petitioner:SRI P- RAGHAVENDERREDDY,}

¶21

STANDING COUNSEL

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1:SRI M' VENKAT RAM REDDY} The Court made the^{following: ORDER}

¶23

¶24

HON,BLu sRr JUSTICI 4BHINAND KTIIUAR SI I.\VILI /\Nl) HON,I}I,I' SRI JI]S?'ICI, , \ MAVAITAPU RAJ ES1.I\,,,IIt RAO

¶25

W.?,N,r.27125 O| 2014 OBDEI! (t,rr !ttn,b/t \tn ltti,v..!tt , t ,/ KtttLr .\ tt,tt,ili)

¶26

Aggrieved by thc or.cler dated 2g.03.2014 passed in O.ANo.11O8 01' 2OO8 by the Andhra pradesh Administrative Tribunel (for shon ,the Tribunal), Hyderabad, the present r.u.it petidon has been filed. 2. F{eard iearned Standrng C_ounsel for TG I,IppS & GPPS appearing for the petitioncr, and Sri M.\renkat Ram fuddy, Ieamed cotrnsel appearing fo;: the 1., respondent.

¶27

It is the case of the pctitioner thar father of thc 1,, respondent was working as Attender in Zp F[gh School, Kondapur and he has tal<en retiremenr on medical grounds uide proceedtnss d.1red 5il-11-2001. Thereafter, the 1" respondent has submitted an application seeking

¶28

.:q.{ ..::

¶29

aPPomtment orl compassionate grounds uide G.O.lvls.No.661, dated^{23.10.2008. \X4ren the case of the} 1" respondent was not considered^{and rejecteduide} proceedings darcd 12.07.2011, the^{1" respondenthas} approached the Tribunal by filing O.ANo.1108^{of 2008.} V(thout appreciating any of the contentions^{raisedby the} petitioner, the Tribunal uide order dated^{28.03.2014set} aside the rejection proceedings and^{directed the} petitioner to consider the case of the 1"^{respondentfor} appointment on compassionate grounds in^{terms of} G.O.Iv{s.No.661, dated 23.10.2008. Hence,^{the present} wrrt Peuuon.

¶30

kamed Standing Counsel^{appearing for the} petitioner had contended that^{appropriateordenbe} passed in the vrit petition by^{setcing aside the order} passed bythe Tribunal and allowthe writ^petition.

¶31

Leamcd corrnsel .rppearing for dre 1.,, rcspondent

¶32

had conrended rhat rhc State Govemment has taken a policy clecision ro provide appoirtnrent on compassionate grounds in favour of strch o1, those employees. who havc taken retiremenr on medicai invaiidation grounds. Lear:red counsel had funher conrended that when thc policy of the Statc is to providc xppomtment on comp:rssionate grounds even in l.avour of thc employees, who I'rave taken redremenr on medical invalidation grounds, the petitioner was not iustified in rejectrng the case of the 1', respondent. kanrcd counscl had further contended that no positive direction was given in far-our of the 1', respondent and the Tribunal has merely directed the petitioner to consider the case of the 1., respondent for appointment on conrpassionate gror.rnds in terms of G.O.Iv{s.No.661., darcd 23.10.200g.

¶33

¶34

Therefore, there are no medts in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶35

6 Flaving considered the rival submissions made by the leamed counsel on either side, this C-ourt is of the view that when the State has come up with a Scheme for providing appointment to the dependants of the employrees, who retired on medical invaiidation grounds zzle G.O.Iv{s.No .66L, dated 23.L0.2008, the petitioner was not justified in rejecting the case of the 1', respondent. The Tribunal has merely directed the petitioner to consider the case of the 1', respondent for providing employment on compassionate grounds in terms of G.O.IvIs.No.66 1, dated 23 . L0.2008. Therefore, this Co urt is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶36

)

¶37

Accordingil,, thc Writ petition is dismissed. No

¶38

COS TS.

¶39

Miscellaneou peririons,, if any, pendirg sh:rll stanc{

¶40

closecl

¶41

SD/. T. JAYASREE \t ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 1:'--L' SECTION OFFICER

¶42

¶43

To,

¶44

1- One UU to SRI P. RAGHAVENDER REDDY, Standing Counsel tOpUCl 2. One CC to SRI M. VENKAT RAM REDDY, Advocate [OpUCl 3. Two (,U Copies MP GJP

¶45

HIGH COURT

¶46

DATED:0510712023

¶47

'i A I.-
()-
t
)J 15 AUB 2$a
.'!
..-,/,-
\i t ,,;
\ Tcily';)
DER

¶48

WP.No.27125 of 2014

¶49

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶50

No:") sQ 5B\r^o- o3 ) )

C.E.O.,the Zilla Praja Parishad, Sangareddy,Medak Dist v. D.Ramesh, and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

C.E.O.,the Zilla Praja Parishad, Sangareddy,Medak Dist v. D.Ramesh, and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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.)

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

The Commissioner, Vs Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal

A.Dinakar Babu IAS and 5 othes Vs Ms. Radha Chauhan, IAS

T Chiranjeevulu IAS (Retd) and 9 other Vs Ms. Radha Chauhan, IAS