The State Of Telangana And 2 Others vs Chennamma
2022 Latest Caselaw 116 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                            AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                               W.A.No.19 of 2022

JUDGMENT:     (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)



     The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated

17.08.2021      passed           by       the       learned           Single    Judge   in

W.P.No.14369 of 2021.

     The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the

respondent No.1/writ petitioner submitted an application for

grant of compassionate appointment to the District Collector,

who was the competent authority and the District Collector

recommended her case for appointment to the Tahsildar,

Pebbair Mandal, Wanaparthy District. The Tahsildar

thereafter issued an appointment order appointing the

respondent No.1/writ petitioner on compassionate grounds as

a Village Revenue Assistant on 18.07.2017. The respondent

No.1/writ petitioner started serving the State Government.

However, the District Treasury Officer raised some technical

objection in respect of her salary bill and since 2017 she was

made to run from pillar to post. It is nobody's case that the

respondent No.1/writ petitioner was not working. Though she

was working regularly, the payment of her salary was not

done and in those circumstances, she was forced to approach

this Court. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the

parties at length, has allowed the writ petition directing

payment of salary, as the respondent No.1/writ petitioner was

appointed in accordance with law.

The documents on record reveal that in spite of the

clarifications obtained from the District Collector in 2017

itself, the District Treasury Officer, for the reasons best

known to him, was not releasing the salary of the respondent

No.1/writ petitioner and was not signing her bills and in

those circumstances, the writ petition has been filed.

In the considered opinion of this Court, once the

appointment order was issued by the competent authority on

compassionate grounds, there was no reason for the District

Treasury Officer for withholding the bills of the respondent

No.1/writ petitioner. The District Treasury Officer could have

sought clarification from the State Government, if he was not

satisfied with the explanation of the District Collector.

At this stage, it has been pointed out that the District

Treasury Officer was not heard in the matter.

It is really unfortunate that such a lame excuse is being

made before this Court today. The documents on record

reveal that B. Venkateshwarlu, District Treasury Officer, has

filed counter affidavit in the writ petition and he was very

much heard in the matter.

Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the

question of interference with the order passed by the learned

Single Judge does not arise.

Resultantly, the writ appeal stands dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_______________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

17.01.2022 JSU