Disposed

B.Dhanamma v. The Principal Secretary to the State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Mar 2024WP/6539/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Widow and son of a deceased irrigation department employee sought pensionary benefits, compassionate appointment and notional regularization of his services. Without deciding merits, the Court directed the Principal Secretary to consider their pending representation per G.O.Rt.No.331 dated 08.09.2021 within three months.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.1 directed to decide petitioners' representation dated 22.11.2023 per G.O.Rt.No.331 dated 08.09.2021 within three months and communicate orders to petitioners.

B.Dhanamma Vs The Principal Secretary to… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Speciat Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF IVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETITION N O: 6539 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

1- B.Dhanamma, Wo. Late B.V_Narsaiah, aged about 51 years,Occ. Housewife 2. B. Anil kumar, S/o. Late B.V.Narsaiah, aged about 33 years, Occ.Un_ employee,

¶9

Both are pre:_qntly R/o H-N^o 2-98, Mutyalamm a Bazar, Acharlagudem (V),Bethavolu (P), Chitukur (tr,/) Suryapet Disirict.

¶10

..PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Principal Secretary- to the State of Telangana, lrrigation and CAD Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad-500022.

¶13

2 The Executive Engineer,. lrrigation Division-l Hill Colony,Nagarjuna Sagar Dam, Nagarjunasagar, Nalgonda District.

¶14

3 The. Superintending Engineer, NS.Dam Circle Hill Colony, Nagarjunasagar Nalgonda District.

¶15

4 The Chief Engineer, N.S.L.C. Nagarjunasagar^project, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

¶16

E The Engineer-in-Chief, lrrigation and CAD Department, Erramanzil, State of Telangana, Hyderabad-500 082.

¶17

6 The State of Telangana,rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance and planning Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad-500022.

¶18

..RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of lt/andamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by declaring action of the 1st respondent in not considering the case of the 1st petitioner for granting Pension and Pensionary benefits and not providing compassionate appointment in favor of the 2nd petitioner, by regularizing the services of the deceased Late B.V.Narasaih, as per

¶20

G.O.lvls.No.143, lrrigation (Ser.V) Department, dt.^{16-03-84, notionallyon} completion of 5^years of service, as was done^{in case of colleaguesof Late} B.V.Narasaiah, i.e., the husband of^{the 1st petitionerand father of the 2nd} petitioner, on the ground that they areⁱⁿ service,^{vide G.O.l/t.No.331} ,^lrrigation and CAD (Services-l) Department,^{dt.08.09.2021and G.O.Rt. No.76,lrrigation} and CAD (Services-l) Department, dl.^{24.O3.2023, as illegal, arbitraryand} u nco nstitutiona I being violative^{of Articles'14,16 and 21 of Constitution of lndia} and consequently direct the^{1st respondentto consider the case of the 1St} petitioner for Pension and Pensionary benefits^and to^{providecompassionate} appointment in favor of the^{2nd petitioner, by regularizingthe servicesthe} deceased Late B.V.Narasiaih, as^{per G.O.[/s.No.143,lrrigation(Ser-V)} Department, dt. 16-03-84, notionally on^{completionof 5 years of service,as was} done in case of his colleagues, i.e.,^{the husbandof the 15t petitioner and father} of the 2nd^petitioner, with all consequential^{benefits,in the interestof Justice.}

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petrtion, the HighCourt may be pleased to} direct the lst respondent to consider^{the case of the 1st petitionerfor Pension} and Pensionary benefits and to^{provide compassionate appointmentin favor of} the 2nd petitioner, by regularizing^{the services the deceasedLate B.V.Narasiaih,} as per G.O.N/s.No.143, lrrigation^{(Ser.V) Department,dt. 16-03-84, notionallyon} completion of 5^years of service,^{as was done in caseof his colleagues'i.e., the} husband of the 1st^petitioner and^{father of the 2nd petitioner,by passing orders} on the representations of the^{petitioners,the latest being 23.11.2023'pending} final disposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI A.K.JAYAPRAKASH^RAO

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶27

WRIT PETITION No. 6539 of 2024

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Writ Petition is Iiled by the petitioner seeking the following

¶30

relief:

¶31

"... to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction by declaring action of the 1"r respondent in not considering the case of the 1", petitioncr for granting pension and Pensionary benefits and not providing compassionate appointment in favor of the 2nd petitioner by regularizing the services of the deceased Late B.V.Narasaih as per G.O.Ms.No.143, Irrigation (Ser.V) Department, dt. 16.03.84 notionally on completion of 5 years of service as was done in case of colleagues of Late B.V.Narasaiah i.e., the husband of the l"t petitioner and father of the 2"4 pctitioncr on the ground that they are in servicc vide G.O.Mt.No.33l, Irrigatron and CAD (Services-l) Depa-rtment, &. Oa.O9.2O2I and G.O.Rt.No.76, trrigation arld CAD (Sewices-l) Department, dL. 24 .O3.2O23 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutiona_l being violative o[ Articles 14, 16^.a::rd 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct thc ls, respondent to consider the case of the l"r petitioner for Pension and pensionary benel-rts and to provide compassionate appointment in favor of the 2.d petitioner by regularizing the services the deceased Late B.V.Narasaiah as per G.O.Ms.No. 143, Irrigatron (Ser.V) Department, dt. 16,03.84 notionally on completion of 5 years of service as was done in case of his colleagues i.e., the husbald of the l"t petitioner and father or the 2.d petitioner with aI consequential benefits in the interest of Justice aId pass...',

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Services for respondents. With consent of

¶33

., J wl, 6s39 2024

¶34

¶35

both the parties, the Writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this court in W.P.No.15702 ol 2O20 dared 29.12.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that though the husband of the petitioner No.1 is similarly situatecl person to the petitioners therein, he could not approach this Court due to ill health and subsequently died on 09.05.2021. Thereafter, the petitioners made a representation to the respondents on 22.1j .2023 and same is pending for consideration till date. Therefore, t.hev prayed this Court to direct the respondent No.1 to consider the representation of the petitioners, dated 22.I1.2023 in the lighr of G.O.Rt.No.331 dated 08.O9.2021 and pass appropriate orders.

¶37

Learned Government Pleader for Servlces appearing for the respondents submitted that the respondents will consider the representation of the petitioners dated 22 .l I .2023 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with 1an,

¶38

5 In vieu' of the above submissions made by respective parties and without going into merits of the casc, this Writ petition is

¶39

PK, J wP 6539 2024

¶40

¶41

disposed of with a directr'on to respondent No. 1 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 22.11.2023 by taking into consideration the G.O.Rt.No.33 1 dated 08.O9.2021 , if petitioners are otherwise eligible and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate a copy thereof to the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if ar-ry, shall stand closed

¶43

SD/- V. HARI PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTI OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary to the State of Telangana, lrrigation and CAD Department, Secretarrat Buildings, Hyderabad-500022.

¶48

The Executive Engineer, lrrigation Division-l Hill Colony,Nagarjuna Sagar Dam, Nagarjunasagar, Nalgonda District-

¶49

The. Superintending Engineer, NS.Dam Circle Hill Colony, Nagarjunasagar Nalgonda District.

¶50

The Chief Engineer, N.S.L.C. Nagarjunasagar Project, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

¶51

The Engineer-in-Chief , lrrigation and CAD Department, Erramanzil, State of Telangana, Hyderabad-500 082.

¶52

The Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, State of Telang ana-5OOO22.

¶53

One CC to SRI A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO, Advocate [OPUC]

¶54

Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶55

o Two CD Copies BSR GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1310312024

ORDER

WP.No.6539 of 2024

't-- <br>,iil zl
e, l
'! .t
./

¶61

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

¶62

WITHOUT COSTS

¶63

\ 7-

B.Dhanamma v. The Principal Secretary to the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Dhanamma v. The Principal Secretary to the State of Telangana

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

K.v.Haripriya Vs The District Educational Officer

C.Venkataiah Vs The State of Telangana

Md. Khaja Fasiuddin Vs The Osmania University

Rudrala Suresh Kumar Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited and 2 Others

K.Vasudeva Rao Vs The State of Telangana

D. Mary Shobha Rani Vs The State of Telangana