Allowed

D.Krishna, v. The Miryalaguda Municipality

Telangana HC11 Mar 2025WP/46799/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Son of a deceased NMR public health worker sought compassionate appointment from the Miryalaguda Municipality despite inordinate delay in processing his claim. The High Court allowed the writ petition, directing the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration to pass orders appointing him to a suitable post under G.O.Ms.No.118 within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 to appoint the petitioner to a suitable post per G.O.Ms.No.118 dated 18.08.1999 within eight weeks; Rule Nisi made absolute; no costs.

D.Krishna, Vs The Miryalaguda Municipality — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT RYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE ELEVE TH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND A D TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRES NT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI E NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NOt 46799 OF 2018

¶7

Between:

¶8

D.Krishna, S/o. Late D. Sakru, Aged about 28 years, Occ. Unemployee, Rl/o. Water Tank Thanda, Nandrpadu Post, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Miryalaguda Municipality, rep. by its Municipal Commissioner, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda' District.

¶12

The Commissioner and Director of M nicipal Administration, State of Telangana, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad

¶13

The State of Telangana, rep- by its P ncipal Secretary, [\zlunicipal Administration and Urban Developme t Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶14

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶15

,..RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Cgnstitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filefl therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction m re particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the actron of the r spondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for appointment on co passionate grounds as void, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to consider the ca e of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in any suitable post as per G.O.Ms.No.118 dated 1 8.08.1999.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that^{in thecir,:unstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court^{may re pleased} to direct the 1st respondents to consider and pass orders on the repr€sentation made by the petitioner dated 04.09.2012 and latest daled 27.11.2018 for providing appointment on compassionate^grounds in any suitable^post as^per G.O.lVs.No.118 dated 18.08.1999 oending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. JAGADISH

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI RAMESH CHILLA ISC FOR SERVICE MATTERS OF ALL MUNICIPALITIES TELANGANA)

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3: GP FOR MUl.llclPAL ADMINISTRATION I.'RBAN DEVELOPM ENT

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR FINANCE

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

¶25

wp^,l(r799 2018 NBK, J

¶26

THE H^{ON'BLESRI JUSTTCEN}

¶27

GESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶28

WRIT PETIT ION No.46799^{of 2018}

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

The case of the petitioner is^{that he is the son of late D. Sakru,who} was appointed as NMR Public^{Health Worker in the ['t respondent} municipality on 01.02.1988.^{He was grandedMinimum TimeScale of Pay} w.e.f. 01.03.1996 upon completing^{mofe than 5 years of service as} prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.2 l2 dated^{2|.04.1994. He was also extended} periodical increments, revised^{pay qcales'and was eligibte for} regularization. However,^{he expired whitl on duty on 06.06-2012,leaving} behind his family including^{the petitioner.}

¶31

The petitioner passed^{1Othclass anJ belongsto the ScheduledTribe} community. He submitted^{an applicatiiondated 04.09.2012seeking} compassionate appointment,^{enclosing tfre requireddocuments,namely,} Death Certificate, No^{Objection Certififateliom familymembers,No} Eaming Member Certificate,^{No Property Certificate,and FamilyMember} Certificate issued by^{the Tahsildar,MiryflagudaMandal.The petitioner's} father fulfitled all the^{conditionslaid down in G.O.Ms'No'212, but his} It is submitted that the services were not^{regularizedduring his} flifetime. Govemment issued^{G.O.Ms.No.l l8datedl8'08'1999providing} compassionate appointments^{to dePendeftsof deceasedNMR employees} whose cases were^{pending [or regularizatifn. The petitioner, being qualified} for a Last Grade Service^{post and having appliedwithin one year of his} father's death, is eligible^{under th} d said G.O. Despite^rePeated represenfations, including^{the one dated27.1l.20l8, the respondents failed} to pass any orders.

¶32

\f -.1\t

¶33

)

¶34

!P 16799 20llt NBK. ]

¶35

Heard leamed counsel for the petitioner; leamed Sri Ramesh^Chilla, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.l-Municipality; learned Govemment Pleader for Municipal Adrninistration & Urban Development appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and leamed Government Pleader for Finance and Planning apF,ez.ring lor respondent No.4. Perused the record.

¶36

The record reveals that the petitioner earlier ap,proachcd this Court in W.P.No.46799 of 2018, whereupon this Court directerl the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Pursuant thereto, the Municipal Commissioner, Mirya laguda addressed Lr.No.C l/755/MM/2012 dated 28.02.2019 informinli tre petitioner that 22 persons were awaiting compassionate appointment anrl the petitioner was placed at Sl.No. 17, and that appointments woulc l;e processed when vacancles artse.

¶37

Leamed Govemment Pleader places a copy of written instructions and contends that in the year 2023, the petitioner submitted another representation. The Municipal Commissioner, Iv,Iiryalaguda, vide Lr.No.C t/747lMM/2024 dated 14.06.2024, addressed the Dislrict Collector, Nalgonda. In response, the District Collector vide Lr.I.lo.H5/87912024 dated 09.07.2024 directed examination of the proposal uncier G.O.Ms.No. I l8 dated 18.08.1999 read with G.O.Ms.N o.212 dated 22.0.4.1991 and C.O.(P) No. I I 2 dated, 23.07 .1997. It is further submitted that the District Collector instructed that if the candldate is fully fit for compassiorate appointment, a specific recommendation be sent to the Commissirtn:r and Director of Municipa[ Administration, Hyderabad, for clearance from the Finance Deparfiirent. It was further noted that the proposal was being processed after

¶38

¶39

rlp^,16799_2018 NBK- ]

¶40

a lapse of over l0^years from the death^{of the NMR employee whose services} were not regularized. Subsequently,^{the Municipal commissionerrequcsted} the petitioner to submit several^{documerJrts, including Caste Certificate,} Death Certificate, Family^{Member C"ftific"te,No Earning Member} Certificate, No Property^{Ceftificate,Alfidavitwith Notaryattestation,} E,mployment Registration^{Certificate, Financial Status Certificatefrom} RDO Ofhce, and Educational Quatification^{Certificateswith Gazetted} attestation.

¶41

Having considered the respective^{sumissions and perused the record,} and further considering that^{thereis huge aird inordinate delay on the part of} respondents in considering^{the caseof the petitioner,particularly when} G.O.Ms.No.ll8 dated^{18.08.1999 is aq} plicabte, and even as Per^the communication of the^{District Collector tf} rat there is a lapse ol^l0 Yearsⁱⁿ processing the case of the^{petitioner' this C} )ourt is inclined to allow^{the writ} petition.

¶42

6 Accordingly, the Writ Petition^{is allowed,witha directionto the2nd} respondent to pass appropriate^ordersa fipointing^{the petitioner in anY} suitable post in accordance^{with G.O.Ms.N} [,. I I 8 dated I 8.08. 1999 and other relevant G.Os., within^{a periodof eight (t} i)^{weekslromthe dateof receiPt} of a copy of this^{judgment. No costs.Miscellaneouspetitions pending,if} any, shalt stand closed. _ L

¶43

That Rule Nisi^{has madeAbsoluteas abov! witness}

¶44

JOY PAUL,^{TuesdaY,The Eleventh} Witness THE^{HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF SUI} DaY Of March^{Two Thousai} rd And TwentY^Five

¶45

SD/. M. OSMAN^{ALI B.AIG} STANT REGISTRAR

¶46

//TRUE C PYII SECTION^OFFICER

¶47

To, 1 The.Municipal^{Commissioner' Miryalaguda' The Miryalagudalvlunicipality'} Nalgonda District

¶48

¶49

The Commissioner^{and Director of Municipal Administralion' Stateof} Telanqana,^{A.C. Guards.Hvderabad.}

¶50

il;: P?.-;;ri s."ietrrv,^{Mdnicipal Ad ministration and U rba n Develo pment} Oepartr"fii^{Secretariit,TheState of Telangana,Hyde-abad'}

¶51

4 i65^{piinCiprr Secretary, Finance and Plannhg Depahm':nt, Secretariat' The} State of Telangana,^HYderabad.

¶52

5 One CC to Sri-S.^{Jagabish,Advocate[OPUC]} 6 5;; CC io Sri nrr"-.n^{Chiila (SC for S-erviceMatters O'All l'4unicipalities} Telangana) [OPUC]

¶53

7 f*o Court for Ct to'The the^State GP^{of ior Telangana, at Municipal Administration Hyderabadtou UrPan lltrevelopment' High}

¶54

1"uio'c-C io1n" cp^{ro'. Fina-nce,High-Courtforlhe Stakrof Telangana' at} Hyderabad[OUT]

¶55

I Two CD CoPies

TJ a TKS

HIGH COURT

DATED:1110312025

ORDER

WP.No.46799 of 2018

2I AIJB 206 . _t:i rl
:-i
,i,
.'-' .,: ,I ,'-'-

¶63

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION

¶64

WITHOUT COSTS

D.Krishna, v. The Miryalaguda Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Krishna, v. The Miryalaguda Municipality

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

N Darahasa Lahari S/o. Sri Ranga Rao Vs Star Union Dai-Ichi Life Insurance Company Limited

M.Raghavolu Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Shiridi Sai Man Powers Vs The State of Telangana

C.Sridhar Vs The State of Telangana

Doli Durgamma Vs Union of India

Sonabovena Sunitha , Vanga Sunitha, Warangal Dist Vs Chairman and M.D., Tspgcl., Hyd and 3 Ot