Smt R. Yadamma Vs State of Telangana

1 State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, [/unicipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad-500 022.

¶17

¶18

2 The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

...RESPONDENTS

*+

.,

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, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds by condoning the delay of 3 months 25 days in submitting the application for appointment on compassronate ground vide Memo No.6538/GHMC/2014 Municipal Administration and Urban Development, dt.11-12-2019 and the consequent letter No. 1809/LWS/B2.GHMC/2019/319, dt.13-12-2019 of the 2nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, total non-application of mind and in violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia to quash or set aside the same and issue a consequential direction to the Respondents No.1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate

¶26

$ * {

¶27

grounds by condoning the delay of 3 Months^{25 daysin filing the applicationwith} all attendant benefits

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition. the Highcourl may be pleased to} direct the Respondents to consider^{the case of the petitionerfor appointmenton} compassionate grounds by^{suspending the Memo No.6538/GHMC12014} tVlunicipal Administration and^{UrbanDevelopmentdated 1 1-12-2019issued by the} respondent and consequent^{letter No.1 809/LWSlB2.GHMCI?O19131 9, dI.1 B-12-} 2019 ol the 2nd respondent^forthwith

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner : SMT.^{ALAPATI LATHA}

¶34

¶35

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1^{: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBANDEV}

¶36

Counsel for Respondent No.2^{: SRIG.NARAYANA,SC FORGHMC}

¶37

The Court made the following:^ORDER

.+

*i

f

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶46

WRIT PETITION No.16157 OF 2023

¶47

ORDER:

¶48

Heard Smt. Alapati Latha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri G Narayana, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

¶49

2. The oetitioner filed the writ petition seekinq the followinq relief :

¶50

"...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus" declaring the action of the 1't Respondent in rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds by condoning the delay of 3 months 25 days in submitting the application for appointment on compassionate ground vide Memo No.653B/GHMC/21L4 Municipal Administration and Urban Development, dated 11.t2.2019 and the consequent letter No. 1809/LWS/B2.GHMC/2019/319, dated 18.12.2019 of the 2nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, total non-application of mind and in violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India to quash or set aside the same and issue a consequential direction to the Respondents No.1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds by condoning the delay of 3 Months 25 days in filing the application with all attendant benefits and pass..."

¶51

,i

¶52

2

¶53

SN, J wP 16 ri7 202 r

¶54

The case of the^petitioners, in brief, as^per the averments made in the affidavit filed bv the oetitioner in suoDort of the oresent Writ Petitio n is as under:

¶55

i) The petitioner is the wife of Late R.Narahari, who served as a Kamatee in Ward No.9, GHMC, and died in service on 08.05.2009 after rendering 19 years oF service. Following his death, the petitioner submitted an application on 02.09.2010 seeking compassionate appointment. Due to the sudden demise of her husband, the petitioner was in a state of shock and also suffered ill health, which led to a delay in filing the application.

¶56

ii) The petitioner later submitted a delay explanation on 11.03.2011 along with medical certificates. However, the 2nd respondent rejected the petitioner's application stating that it was belated by 4 months. Aggrieved by the^rejection, the petitioner filed an appeal on 27.07 .2Oll before the 1't respondent seeking condonation of delay on medical and humanitarian grounds. Despite submitting further representations in 2014, no action was taken

SN. J wP r 6157 2021

;^1

3

iii) The petitioner filed W.P.No.17732 of 2019 before this Court, which directed the 1't respondent to dispose of the appeal within eight weeks. Pursuant to this, the 1.t respondent, vide Memo dated 11.12.2019, rejected the appeal merely citing delay of 3 months and 25 days without providing any reasoning or considering the petitioner's explanation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶61

4. PERUSED THE RECORD

¶62

(A) The imouoned order oassed bv the res ondent No.1 vide Memo No.6538/GHMC-L t20L4. dated 11.12.2O19 is

¶63

extracted hereunder:-

¶64

"...File No.LWEST/ COA/K&K/ Ol tO /20 19/SR.ASST2(LW5/HO

¶65

Receipt No: 46297 3 / 20t9 /SR.ASST-2(LWS)-HO

¶66

GOVERNMENT OF TELANGANA

¶67

MUNIClPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT (GHI'4C-1) DEPARTMENT

¶68

Memo.No.553 8/GHMC-7/20t4

¶69

11.12.2010

¶70

Sub: Suits-Hi9h Court-W.P.No. 17732 of 2019 flted by Smt R. Yadamma, Wo Late R. Narahari, Puranapool, Hyderabad for seeking appointment under compassionate grounds - RejectedReg.

¶71

Ref: 1. Representation of Smt R. Yedamma, W/o Late R. Narahari, Puranapool, Hyderabad, dated. 2l.O7.2OlL, 14.O5.2014 & 20.11.2014.

¶72

The Commissioner, GHMC, Hydarabad, Lr. No 1809/82lLWS/cHMc/ /2019/ 6a9, dated 1s.03.20 12

¶73

4

¶74

*t1 :.

¶75

SN. J urP t6 I 57 2023

¶76

G.O. [1s. No.699, MA, dt.28.08,1978

¶77

4.The Commissioner, GHMC, Hyderabad, Lr.No.1809/82/LWS/ GHrvlc/201 U689, dated. 16/18.07.2011.

¶78

Orde-s dated 20.08.2019 In W.P.No. 11132 of 2019 of the Hon'ble High Court for the State ofTelangana, Hyderabac.

¶79

The attention of the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Flunicipal Corporation, Hyderabad is invited to the references cited. In the reference 1't cited, STt. R.Yadmma Wo. Late Narahari has appealed to the Government for her appointment on Compassionate Grounds rn place of her decease(l Husband In GH[4C.

¶80

ln the reference 2nd cited the Commissioner, GHlvlC has stated that Sn. R.Narahafl worked as Kamtee in Section, Ward No 9, Crrcle No.7, GHI4C and €rxpired on 08.05.2009, while in service. After frs death hrs wife Smt. R.Yadamma has submitted application for seeking appointment under compassionate grounds. Following the Government orders issued in the refercnce 3'd cited, that the applications for appointment from the dependents of the deceased employees shall be entertained within a period of (1) year from the date of occurrence of the death oi a municipal employee, the case of the applicant was examined by the Commissioner, GHl"1C, Hyderabad and rejected in the reference 4tt' crted dated 16/18.O1.2Oll on the grounds that her application for appointment on compassionate grounds was belated by (3) months (25) days and the same has been informed to her. He has further stated that the reasons put forth by her not submitting application within the stipulated time that she was bed ridden.

¶81

In the reference 5th cited, the Hon'ble High CoLrrt in orders dated 20.08.2019, W.P. No. 17732/2019 filed by Smt R. Yadamma W/o Late R. Narahari, Puranapool, Hyderabad, has issued directions to the Government to dispose oF the appeal referred by the petitioner on 27.O7.2011 by duly taking rnto account the recommendations submitted by the Commissioner, GHl4C, Hyderabad on 15.03.201:2 and pass appropriatc Jrders in accordance with law within a period of (B) weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Subsequently while enclostng the above order;, Smt. R. Yadamma Wo Late R. Narahari has submitted representation to the Government and requested to re-consider her applicatron as per the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court for appointment on compassionate grounds in place of her deceased husband Sfl. R. Narahari in GHI\4C.

¶82

As such, the appeal of Smt. R.^yadamma W/o Late R. Narahari, Pu'anapool, Hyderabad in the representation dated 2t.Ol.2]tt to consider her case for appointment on compassionate grounds in place of her deceased husband who worked as Kamatee, ward No.g, circle No.7, rn GHMC, has been examined keeping in view of the report submitted by the Commissioner, GHMC,^Hyderabad and also the orders issued in the reference 3'd cited and the same is hereby rejected, as the applicant has submitted reoresentation belated^{by (3) months (25)} days.

¶83

5

¶84

SN. ] wP 16 t 57 2021

¶85

The Commissioner, GHMC, Hyderabad shall take necessary action to rnform the individual accordingly

¶86

ARVIND KUMAR

¶87

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY IO GOVERNMENT

¶88

To

¶89

The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. The Individual through the Commissioner, cH14C, Hyderabad. Copy to:

¶90

The Govt., Pleader for Services (TS), High Court for the State oF Telangana, Hyderabad. Sclsf... "

¶91

(B) The releva nt Dortion of the imouqned order vide Lr.No.18O9/LwS/82lGHtqC/ 2OL9 /319 dated 18.12.2019 of the respondent No.2 issued to the Detitioner herein is

¶92

extracted hereunder :-

¶93

"...With reference to this office letter vide 12th cited, the Government vide reference 13th cited have examined the appeal of Smt.R. Yadrmma V,,l/o Late. Narahari in the representation dated.2l.O7 .2071 to consider her case 'for appointment on compassionate grounds in place of her deceased husband who worked as Kamatee in Ward No-9, Circle No-13 (old circle7) GHMC leeeping in view the report submitted by the Commissioner, GHMC vide reference Bth cited and also orders issued by the Government vide G.O.Ms No.699,M.A.,dt.28.08.1978 and rejected, as the applicant has submitted the representation belated by (3) months and (25) days..."

¶94

6

¶95

SN, J wP I6l i7 2 021

¶96

(c) The relevant oortion of the order of this Court dated 20.08.2019^passed in favour of the^petitioner in W.P.No.17732 ot 2(J19 file{bv the oetitioner is extracted

¶97

hereunder:-

¶98

"This Court, having considered the rival submissions, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 2L.07.2011 by duly taking into account the recommendations submitted by the Tnd respondent on 15.03.2012 and pass apprc)priate orders in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶99

With the above observations, the Writ petition is disoosed of. No order as to costs.

¶100

(D) The relevant Dortion of the reoresentation of

¶101

the oetitioner dated L4.O5.2 O14 is extracted hereunder :

¶102

".. I beg to submit the following facts of the case for your consideration and favorable orders in th€r matter.

¶103

That, I, R.Yadamma, W/o.Late R.Narahari and I harre filed the application for compassionate appointment due to demise of my husband Sri R.Narahari, Kamatee in Circle No.7, GHMC who expired on 08.05.2009 while in service.

¶104

It is submit that after death of my husband and I have met various family problems and in

,.. ,/

7

SN, J wP 16157 2021

mean time I serious suffered and which medical certificate submitted to that effect, the concerned authority have not observe my position to filed the application in time i.e., within one year, but my application delay 3 months 25 days. On that ground my request have been rejected.

¶109

Therefore I request your goodself kindly look into the matter and medical ground of my illhealth and passed necessary orders for my appointment and relaxation on medical ground, by this way give life to my small children to live in the world with two time bread and your honour one stroke of pen can change my life..."

¶110

(E) The relevant oortion of the reoresentation of the Detitioner dated 2L.LL.2Ol4 acknowledqed on 21.11.2OL4 bv the resDondent No,1 is extracted

¶111

hereunder:-

¶112

"...I beg to submit the following facts of the case for your consideration and favourable orders in the matter.

¶113

That, I, R.Yadamma, W/o.Late R.Narahari and I have filed the application for compassionate appointment due to demise of my husband Sri R.Narahari, Kamatee in Circle No.7, GHMC who expired on 08.05.2009 while in service.

¶114

It is submit that after death of my husband and I have met various family problems and in mean time I serious suffered and which medical certificate submitted to that eFfect, the concerned authority have not observe my position to filed the application in time i.e., within one year, but

8

SN, J wP t6157 2021

=\r" \

my application delay 3 months^{25 days.On that} ground my request have been rejected.

¶119

Therefore I request^{your goodself kindlylook} into the matter and medical^ground of^{my ill-} health and passed necessary orders for^my appoiltment and relaxation on medical^ground, by th s way^give life to my^{small children to live} in the world with two time bread and^your honour one stroke of^pen can change^{my life.}

¶120

Thanking you

¶121

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

¶122

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the^{petitionersubmits} that, the^petitioner made detailed^{representations dated} 2L07.20Lt, 74.05.2014, and 21.11.2014,^bringing to^{the notice of} the responderrts the circumstances the^{petitionerfaced soon aFter} the death of her husband, including the adverse impact on^her health. The^petitioner had also obtained and submitted a^medical certificate evidencing her health issues. However, the^specific reasons^put forth by the^petitioner in^her detailed^{representationand} the medical certificates submitted were not examined by^the respondents. Instead, the respondents mechanically rejected the petitioner's representations dated 27.07.2011, 14.05.2014, and 2t.ll.2O14, without considering the circumstances that led to a delay of 3 months and 25 days in filing the application by the

¶123

9

¶124

SN. J \T t6157 2021

¶125

petitioner seeking compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Furthermore, the specific observations made in the order dated 20.08.2019 passed in W.P. No. L7732 of 2019, which are admittedly borne on record, were also not considered by the respondents.

¶126

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the applications for compassionate appointment from the eligible persons shall be entertained within a period of one year from the date of occurrence of the death of Government servant and in the present case, the husband of the petitioner died on 08.05.2009 and the petitioner filed the application with the delay of three months twenty five days and therefore, the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, had been rejected by the respondents.

¶127

Since specific recommendations were submitted in favour oF the petitioner by respondent No. 2 on 15.03.2012, this Court opines that the subject issue requires reconsideration by respondent Nos. l and 2 duly taking into consideration the pleas raised by the petitioner in her representations dated 2l.O7.2Oll, 14.05.2014, and 21.11.2014, particularly the reasons relating to her health being affected due to the sudden demise of her husband, as evidenced by the enclosed medical certificate and

¶128

l0

¶129

SN, J \il, 16 t57 2023

¶130

in view the objective of the compassionate appointment scheme, as directed by this Court specifically in its order dated 20.08.2019 passed in W.P.No.17732 of 2019.

¶131

B. The object of compassionate appointment is a social security measure to support the family of the deceased government servant, who dies in harness. The aim and object of the policy for compassionate appointment is to provide financial support to the family of the deceased employee, who left the dependents in distress and penury. The core aim of the object of providing compassionate appointment is to relieve the family from financial sufferings being faced for the sudden demise of the Bread Winner of the family. The sufferings being faced by the dependents of the deceased employee for sudden demise of the Bread Winner could be solved for some extent by. providing compassionate appointment to one of the dependents of the deceased employee to look after the family. This Court oDines that the said relief should not be enied on f r an techn roun atan e ver ob ect of the m IOn ea tmen hence this Court ooines lhat petitioner is entitled for

¶132

1l

¶133

SN, .I wP 16 t57 202^r

¶134

.1

¶135

on of etitioner's re u for rovid in compassionate apoointment in accordance to law on humanitarian qrounds dulv considerinq the verv obiect of compassionate aDpointment.

¶136

Takinq tnto consideration:

¶137

(a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,

¶138

(b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Admanistration and Urban Development, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri G.Narayana, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing on behalf of respondent No.2,

¶139

(c) The impugned order of the respondent No,1 vide Memo No.6538/GHMC-1/2014 dated 11.12.2019 (referred to and extracted above),

¶140

(d) The impugned order of the respondent No.2 Lr.No. 1809/LWS/82/GHMC/2OL9/3L9 dated 18.12.2019, (referred to and extracted above),

¶141

(e) The order dated of this Court 20.08.2019 passed in favour of the petitaoner in W.P.No.17732 ot 2OL9 (referred to and extracted above),

¶142

l2

¶143

SN. J wP 16157 2021

¶144

(f) The contents of the representations of the petitioner (referred to and extracted above),

¶145

The writ Detition is disposed of directinq the respondent Nos. l and 2 to reconsider the^petitioner's request for comoassionate aopointment without reference to the imouqned order of respondent No.l vide Memo No.6538/GHMC-1/2O14 dat d 1L.L2.2O19, and without reference to the imouoned order of Respondent No.2 Lr.No. 18O9 / LWS I 82 I GHMC I 2 OLg/3L9 dated 18.12.2019 dulv takinq into consideration the oleas out forth bv the petatioller in petitioner's reDresentations dated 2L.O7.ZOLL, L4.O5.2OL4, and 21.11.2 O14, dulv takinq into consideration the earlier order of this Court dated 20.08.2019 Dassed in oetitioner's favour in W.P.No.17732 of 2OL9 in accordance to law and^pass approDriate orders n rt ft 4 weeks f rom the da lr ot a coDv of thiso rd er du v takino into consideration th e obiect of the scheme for providinq comDassionate ADD otntm e nt the wife of a deceased emDlovee, in onfor wl h h rl les f natural r tn an ortu n i f r I hearin h

¶146

t3

¶147

SN. J wP 16r57 2021

¶148

petition er, dulv examinino the relevant docu ments in

¶149

SUDDort of petitioner' s clai for comDassi nate ADDOI ntment and comm u n icate t e decisio Derta ininq to itione r' re ues f r com ionat orn to th petition er. Howev er, there hall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand

¶150

closed.

¶151

"SD/.C. DEEPIKA AS ISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

*l

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Principal Secretary, Municipal^{Administration} Urban Development Department, State of Telangana,^{Secretariat Build} rngs ,^{Saifabad, Hyderabad-} 500 022

f

7 # I ,