Baldu Venu Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Baldu Venu, S/o. Late Baldu Sailu, aged about 30 years, Occ ; Unemployee, R/o. H.No. 17-49, Sarojini Devi Road, Narsampet (Town and Mandal), Warangal Rural District.

¶10

.....PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, General Administration (Political) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Collector and District fVlagistrate, Warangal, Warangal District.

¶14

The Collector and District Magistrate, Hanamkonda, Hanamkonda District.

¶15

.....RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition Under Article 226 of the 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 impugned Memo. Rc.No. F.2136412022, dated 13-1-2023 issued by the 2nd respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia besides being contrary to the ratio laid down by this Hon'ble Court in W.A.No. 69 of 2012 and W.A.No. 415 of 2012 and consequently set-aside the same,and hold that the petitioner is entitled for providing suitable job in State Government in accordance with the ratio laid down by this Hon'ble Court in W.A.No. 69 of 2012 and W.A.No. 415 of 2012 with all consequential benefits.

¶17

Prayer amended as per C.O. dt. 06.01 .2026 in l.A.No.2/2023 (WP.No.5 682120231

¶18

.rrffit. :i:+*-.n..,-,:. ffi 'ffiffi''r'{.-ffi:":'

¶19

|.A.NO:1 OF 2123

¶20

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circ-umstances stated in the affidavit filerd in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for providing suitable job in State Governnrent forthwith by suspending the operation-of the impugned Memo. Rc.No. A2136a.12022, dated 13-1-2023 issued by the 2ndrespondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶21

Prayer amended as per C.O. dt. 06.01 .2026 in l.A.No.2/2023 (WP.No.568212t0231

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.NARASIMHA

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : AGP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : AGP FOR REVENUE

¶25

The Court made the fotlowing ORDER

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶27

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

Dated : O6.O1.2O26

Between

Baldu Venu

.... Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana represented by Its Principal Secretary, General Administration (Political) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 others

¶34

... Respondents

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

Heard sri^p. Narasimha, learned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for General Administration, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3.

as under:

it

2

SN.^J wp_5682_2023

.....tc, issue an order or direction more particularly^{one in the} nature of^{Writ of Mandamusdeclaring the impugnedMemo'} Rc.No. A2136412022,^{dated 13-1-2013 issuedby the }nd} respondent^{as being illegal, arbitrary,discriminatory, unjust} andviolativeofArticles14,L6and2loftheConstitutionof Indi;lbesidesbeingcontrarytotheratiolaiddownbythis Honole Court^{in W.A' No' 69 of 2OL2and W'A' No' 415 of} 12OL.Z and^{consequently set-asidethe same and hold that the} peti.:ionerisentitledforprovidingsuitablejobinState Governmentinaccordancewiththeratiolaiddownbythis Honble Court^{in W.A' No' 69 of 2OL2and W'A'No' 415 of} zlLlwith^{all consequentiatbenefits and pass"'"'}

¶43

3

¶44

under:

¶45

Tl.refatherofthepetitionerlateB.sailuWaSkilledin extremi:;t^{violence(Naxalities). The Districtcollector promiseda} jobto()neofthefamilymembersintheserviceoftheState Governtnent.Therespondentsdidnottakeintoconsiderationthe ratio laid^{down by this courtin its Judgmentdated 06'11'2010 in} W.P.No.241t7/2010andupheldinW.A.No.69l20L2andW.A. No.415,/20l2whichwasalsoupheldbytheApexCourtinSLP Nos. 9520^{and g52t of 2013. The respondent No.2issued}

a4

I

E

3

SN. J wp_5682_2021

impugned Memo Rc.No.AZ1364/2022, dated 13.01 .20t3 against the ratio laid down by this Court in W.A. No.69 of 2OL2 and W.A. No.415 of 20t2. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition,

¶52

4. PERUSED THE RECORD:-

¶53

(A) Relevant oortion of the imouqned order issued bv the resoondent No.2^yr'de Rc.No.A2l364/2O22, dated 13.O1.2O23 is extracted hereunder:

¶54

Office of the Collector & District Magistrate, Warangal,

Rc.No.AZl364 t 2022,

dated 13.01.2O23

MEMO

Sub:- SUITS-W.P. No. 2810412019 filed by Sri Baldu Venu, S/o. Late Baldu sailu, R/o. Narsampet - Application submitted for providing employment under the compassionate scheme representation examined in terms of G.O.Ms.No.469, dated 08.11.1996 and G.O.ms.No.504 dated 11.08.2008 G.O.Ms.No. 50, GAD, dated : 21.02.2014 - lnformation - Regarding.

¶59

Ref: 1. Orders of Hon'ble High Court W.p. No. 28104 of 2OL9 2. A/o. Baldu Venu, S/o. Late Baldu Sailu, R/o. Narsampet, Dt : 10.02.2022

¶60

This office Memo No.A2/364/ZOZZ, dt : 27.OS.Z0Z2.

¶61

W.P. No.30090 of 2022 filed by Sri Baldu Venu, before Hon'ble High Court of Telangana.

&&&

l

4

hr

SN. J wp_5682_2021

...In^{your representationdated 10'02'2022 you have} requeste,ctoprovideemploymentunderextremistviolencecase in terms^{ofG.O'Ms'No' 469 dated 0B'11'1996 and} G.o.ms.trlo.504dated^{11.08.2008while submitting the Hon,ble} High Cor-trt^{Commonorders issued' In reply' a memo has been} issueddrrlyrejectingyourrequestforprovidingemployment.

¶68

Aggrieved,^{you have filed a W'P' No' 30090 of 2022before} the Hon'ble^{High Court, HYderabad'}

¶69

Inthisregard,itistoinformyouthatonverificationof documentsyouareonly(02)yearsatthedateofdemiseofyour father,tryhereasaSpertheG.o.Ms.No.469dated0B.11.1996, issued by^{the Government to provide employmentto the son or} adaughterorspouseofanypersonkilledinextremistviolence andintermsofG.O.ms'No'504,dated11'08'2008'Para4the Governnrent^{has provided relaxation and concession of age and} qualification allowed^{accordingtoG'O'Ms'No'786'dated} 11.08.2r]08evenafterprovidingrelaxationandconcessionof (02)yearsfromthedateofdemiseofyourfatherLateSriBaldu SailuS/o.Venkataiah,vouarenotattainedtheagetooet

¶70

Deot.' Dt^{: 21.O1.2O14'}

¶71

H,3rlc€r the^{same is informed'}

¶72

Sd/- Dr.B.^GoPi Collector^{& DistrictMagistrate,} Warangal

,I i(

5

SN. J wp_5682_2021

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶77

(i) The order impugned vide Rc.No.A2/36412022, dated 13.01.2013 issued by the respondent No.2 is an order^passed without application of mind, mechanically without considering the representation of the petitioner under G.O.Ms.No. 469, GAD, dated 08.11.1996 and G.O.Ms.No.5O4, GAD, dated 11.08.2008.

¶78

(ii) The reasons for denying the request of the petitioner for providing employment under the compassionate scheme had been identical to the reasons issued on an earlier occasion vide Memo No. 421364/2012, dated 27.O5.2022.

¶79

(iii) The petitioner's request for providing employment under the compassionate scheme was rejected on 27.05.2022 vide Rc.No. A21364/2022 on the^ground that the^petitioner had not attained the age to get employment, as such the^petitioner is not eligible for employment. In pursuance to the order obtained in favour of the petitioner in W.P. No. 30090 of 2022 the request of the petitioner for providing employment under the compassionate scheme had been considered by the respondent No.2 and the pleas as submitted by the petitioner had been again rejected on the very same reasons and on the ground that

I

6

SN, J wp_5682_2023

the petitioner had not attained the age to get employment, as such the petitioner is not eligible for employment and the petitiorrer is only erigible for additional ex gratia of Rs.5.00 rakhs in lieu of employment as per G.o.Ms.No.50, dated zt.oz.2ot4.

¶84

(iv) The order impugned is contrary to the Judgment dated 06.11.2010 passed in w.p. No.24 tL7 of 2010 reported in 2011 (3) ALD page 202 which had been uphetd in w.A. No.69 of 2ot2 and w.A. No. 415 of 2or2 and arso upherd by the Apex Court in sLP Nos.9520 and 9521 of 2013 and therefore, the petitioner is entifled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition.

¶85

The learned counser appearing on beharf of respondlent No.2 placed reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 in particular para No.9 and the same is extracted hereunder:

¶86

"9. It is humbly submitted that in compliance of the common direction of the Hon'ble High court vide w.p. No.28104 of 2019, dated 28.10.2021, the representation of the petitioner was exarnined by the respondent No.2 under the guidelines. issued by the Government vide G.o.Ms.No.469, G.A., (sc.A), Dept', d;rted 08.11.1996 and its subsequent g.o.ms.No.50,

t

SN. J np_5682_2023

,y

7

dated 2t.02.2014 of G.A. (scA) Dept., and it is observed that the petitioner herein has sought employment under extremist violence case in terms of G.O.Ms.No.504, dt: 11.08.2009 including the G.O.Ms.No.50, dated 2t.02.29L4 of G.A. (SCA) Dept., but he is not entitled to get the appointment as he is minor as on the date of death of his father, and even relaxation of the age of the petitioner under the parameters envisaged in the above G.o.s., he is not eligible to get the appointment. Accordingly, an order dated 13.01.2023 was passed rejecting the petitioner's representation ".

¶92

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 contends that the petitioner had sought employment under Extremist violence scheme in terms of G.o.Ms.No.50, dated 21.02.2014 but the petitioner is not entiUed to get employment as the petitioner is a minor as on the date of death of petitioner's father and even upon relaxation of the age of the petitioner under the parameters envisaged in the said G.os., the petitioner is not entitled to get appointment. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.01.2023 had been passed rejecting the petitioner's representation for providing employment under extremist violence case and therefore, there is no illegality in the order impugned and the writ petition is hence liable to be dismissed.

1

8

SN. I \vp_5682_2021

Bas;edontheaforesaidsubmissionsmadebythelearned Assistant Government^{Pteader contendedthat the writ petition} needs to be^dismissed.

¶97

DISCUSSION^{AND CONCLUSION}

¶98

T.AtlareperusaloftheG.o.Ms.No.50,dated2]-.02.2014of Governrrrent^{of Andhra pradesh in particular para No.5 very} clearly indicates^{that the Government after careful examination} of the rocommendation^{of the committee,agreed to providea} financial assistance^{of Rs.5.00 lakhs to the families of civilians}

¶99

appointment.^{Para No'5 of the G'O'Ms'No'50' dated} zl.o2.2oL4 of^{Government of A.p., very clearly indicatesthat the} financial assistance^{would be providedin case there is no eligible} family member^{in thefamily toseek to'iatsionate} appointrnent.^{It is pertinent to refer to the relevant portionof} the orde:r dated^{26.LL 2010 passed in w.P. No'241t7 of 2010 in}

1r ?

9

SN..I r\ p_5682_2021

2o5 in oarticular para Nos. 10 to 1g are extracted hereunder:

¶104

G.O.Ms.No.504, dated 11.0g.200g, exrended the benefits to the dependants of the victims in the incident that occurred prior to 26.07.1996 atso. The petitioner submitted apptication in terms of this G.o. The lst respondent catted for the remarks of the 2nd respondent. The tatter addressed a tetter, dated 16.11.7009, furnishing the particutars of age of various appticants inctuding the petitioner, as on the'date of the incident. lt was pointed out that the age of the petitioner was 11 years as on the date of the incident and ctarification was sought. A repty, dated 01.01.2010, was issued by the 3rd respondent, which reads as under:

¶105

"The attention of the Collector & District Magistrate, Mahabubnagar is invited to her tetter cited and she is informed that the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.504, G.A. (SC.A) Department, dated 11.08.200g, are very clear and the proposal to consider the cases of minors for compassionate appointmeng in relaxation of rules cannot be considercd."

¶106

The impugned order is a sequet to this. The onty basis for rejecting the case of the petitioner is that she was a minor of 11 years and did not attain the age of majority within two years from the date of death of her father. The basis for this appears to be the fottowing ctause under G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 04.03.199g:

7

l0

SN,^J wp_5682_2023

"[n^{case of a minor, he can seek relief within a} reasonable^{time whichwill be two vearsfrom the date} ofdemiseofthebreadwinnerasstipulatedin Govt.Mcmo^{No.6l0/Ser'A/78-ll'GenI'Admn'Dept''} dt.17.12.1979.^{tf the spouse of the deceased is such a} depcndent^{and is seeking compassionatcappointmentthe} upper^{age can be relaxedas contemplated in Govt' Memo} No.¹ 094/Se^{r. Al92-l,Genl'Admn'Dept''dt'23' l2' 1992'"}

¶111

12.Fromaperusalofthis,itbecomesctearthattheapproach of the^{3rd respondent is totatty untenabte. The object with which} the Government^{introducedthe scheme' wascomptetetyignored'The} factthat.-heCotl'ectori.e.AppointingAuthoritywasconferredwith thepowertorelaxtheagetimitswherevernecessaryoncaseto casebasi:,inthefirstG.o.,itself,wasnottakennoteof.Suchwide powers wrlre^{nevercurtaited or restricted'}

¶112

ln ordinary^{cases ofproviding emptoyment on} compassionate^{qrounds, the Rutes or the scheme insist that an} appticati<lnmustbemadewithinoneyearfromthedateofdeathof theemptoyee.Thereasonisthattheschemeaimsatrescuingthe famity,^{n,hen it is in penury on account of the death of the dmptoyee'} and if the^{famitydid not feet the necessityof availing the benefit for a} periodofoneyear,itissuggestiveofthefactthatthefamilycan carryonwithoutsuchbenefit.Thesamecannotbesaidaboutthe schemeevolvedforthebenefitofthedependantsoftheperson

/

a

SN, J $p_5682_2023

il

kitted in extremist viotence. They do not have any definite source of income and famity is snatched away, of the bread winner for no fautt of them. At no point of time, the scheme stiputated the age timits for the dependants, so much so, the upper age timits of the spouses of the deceased were directed to be retaxed. As matter of fact an extraordinary benefit is conferred in the form of appointing dependants as junior assistants, etc, retaxing the quatifications and permitting them to acquire the quatifications within a stiputated time.

¶118

When there is a specific provision in G.O.Ms.No.469,

¶119

dated 08.11 .1996, conferring power upon the 2nd respondent to retax age limit, it was not necessary for her, to seek permission of the 3rd respondent to retax the age timit. The 3rd respondent has taken a perverse view of the matter and rejected the ctaim of the petitioner.

¶120

The very fact that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.504, dated 11.08.2008, extending the benefit to the victims of the incidents that occurred prior to 1996, disctoses that the dependants woutd either be age barred or under aged at the retevant point of time and stitt the benefit deserves to be extended. The 3rd respondent has denied to the petitioner, what Government in its wisdom wanted to extend.

¶121

At any rate, what becomes retevant is the age of the candidate as on the date of appointment. The petitioner acquired right to submit apptication onty in the year 2008 and it ls nobody's case that she needs any retaxation of age as on the date of her application.

i J

;l

SN'^J wp_5682 2023

IZ

17, Hencq he P nls nd to is set aside. The 3^{rd resDondentis directed} rs the of her as^not uiri the relaxation of^{aqelimits,within two} ft the of a of this t, 18, lbeno order^as

¶127

I

¶128

extracted^hereunder:

¶129

6.ThisledtherespondenttofileW.P.No.24llTof20l0,which wasallowedbyanorderdated26-ll.2010bythelearnedsingle Judge.

¶130

e n o 4.3. to efit a can be me onl two rs of d of deceased.

¶131

l3

¶132

SN. J wp_5682_202i

¶133

The learned single Judge eraboratery considered the various government orders, including the sum and substance of G.o.Ms.No.504, dated 11.08.2008; which for the first time, conferred an entitlement on the respondent to appiy for employment on compassionate grounds.

¶134

learned sinq Judqe held since the has now attained the aqe of maioritv (she is about 26-27 vears of aqe). her a ication sho ld be consi red on merits within a period of two months from the date of receipt ofa v of the

¶135

Even though the order was passed by the learned single Judge on 26-1 1-2010, we find that the present appealwas filed on 21 .7 .2011 with a delay of 92 days in re-presenting the appeal, after removing all office objections. ln other words, the appeal was filed after the time prescribed by the learned Single Judge.

¶136

11we had condoned the deray and have taken up the matter for hearing.

¶137

12Learned Government^pleader appearing on behalf of the State reiterated the stand taken in the counter affidavit that the respondent did not make an application within two years of her father's death, and therefore her case coutd not be considered for employment on compassionate grounds. 13. we are unable to aopreciate this submission. For the

1 tl

t4

SN.^J wp_5682_202-1

rst d e a o a s 1 o the 1-1 1 e the I tf n 1 of is State Government.

¶142

Learned Government^{Pleader relied uponLOCAL} ADMII\ISTRATIoNDEPARTMENTV.M.SELVANAYAGAMto contendthatdetayinapptyingforcompassionateappointment cannot be^retaxed.

¶143

Generally^{speaking,there is no doubt with regard to the} princrplelaiddownbytheSupremeCourt.However,inouropinion, thedecisionrelieduponisnotatallapplicabletothefactsofthis own o the e case Her in an for nd

¶144

application soon^thereafter'

¶145

16.Wefindnomeritinthiswritappealanditisaccordingly ctismissed.^{Miscellaneous applicationis alsodismissed'}

/ /

l5

SN, J wp_5682_2023

I i ili li I {

We direct the appellants to now take a decision on the application made bv the respondent within one month from and in anv case on or before 31-0 2. The decision be taken on the rits of the case and conveved to her".

¶151

A bare perusal of the order of the Division Bench of this court dated 11.04.20L2 passed in writ Appeal No.415 of 2ot2 also indicates that a similar view has been taken referring to the order Dated 23.02.20t2 passed in w.A. No. 6g of 20t2, this court opines that the order impugned passed by the respondent No.2 is hastily passed without application of mind, without considering the relevant G.os and the earlier orders of this court, which had been attained its finality i.e. order dated 26.Lt.2010 passed in w.P. No.24117 of 2010 confirmed in writ Appeal No.69 of 2012 dated 23.02.2012 and the same had been upheld by the Apex court in special Leave to Appeal (civil) Appeal No.9520 of 20L3, preferred against the order dated Lt.04.2012 passed in writ Appeal No.41512012 arising out of the Judgment dated 02.11.2011 passed in w.p. No.15728 of 2010 in identica I circu mstances.

7

l6

: ll i' ri

SN,^J wp_5682_2023

to. This court opines^{that the Detitioner is entitled for}

¶157

h

¶158

its finalittt.

¶159

Takino^{into consideration:-}

¶160

(a)Theaforesaidfactsandcircumstancesofthe

¶161

case.

¶162

(b) The submissions^{made by the learned counsel} appearingonbehalfofthepetitioner'learnedAssistant Government^{Pleader forGeneralAdministration,} appeariing^{on behalf ofrespondent No'1 and learned} AssistantGovernmentPleaderforRevenue,appearingon behalf 'of^{respondent Nos'2 and 3'}

¶163

(c) Relevant^{portion of the order impugnedvide} Rc.No.A2t364|2022,dated13.o1.2o23ottherespondent No.2^{(r'eferredto and extracted above)'}

¶164

(c)TheorderofthisCourtdated26.Ll.2ol0passed in w.F,. No.24117^{of2o1o (referredto and extracted}

above),

I

t7

SN. J wp_i682_2023

I I ii i I ;

, \ I \ I I

II

(d) The order of this Court dated 26.L1.2O1O passed in W.P. No.24tt7 of 2O1O (referred to and extracted above),

¶173

(e) The order of Division Bench oi tt i, Court dated 23.02.2012 passed in Writ Appeal No.69 ot 201,2 (referred to and extracted above),

¶174

(f) The observations of the Apex Court in SLP No.9520 and 9521 of 2Ot3, dated 24.02.2o14 (referred to and extracted above)

¶175

(g) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.7 to 1O of the present order.

¶176

The Writ Petition is allowed. The order impugned vide Memo Rc. No. A2/36412022, dated 13.01.2013 passed by the respondent No.2 is set aside and the respondent No.2 is directed to pass appropriate orders duly reconsidering the petitioner's application seeking employment under the compassionate scheme in terms of G.O. Ms.No.469, dated 08.11.1996, G.O.Ms.No.5O4, dated 11.O8.2OO8, G.O. Ms.No.50, dated 21.O2.2OL4 in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of naturat

r

l8

SN.^J \p_5682_2021

justice by providing^{an opportunity of personal hearing to} thepetitioner,dulytakingintoconsiderationtheviewand theobs;ervationsoftheApexCourtin.thejudgments (referre,d to^{and extracted above)and pass appropriate} orders'within^{a period of six (6) weeks from the date of} receiptofacopyofthisorderdecidingthesubjectissue and conrmunicate^{the decision to the petitioner.However,} there slrall^{be no orderas to costs'}

¶181

Miscellaneous^{petitions, ifdoY, pendingin this Writ} rl I Petition, sha^{ll stand closed.} -P .C.SULEKHA^DEVI rAUT^REGISTRAR /TRUE^COPY"

¶182

SECTION^OFFICER

¶183