Telangana High Court
The Dist. Edu. Officer, 2 Ors., vs Smt. Geetha Rai Another, on 21 March, 2022
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT APPEAL No.305 OF 2010
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated
12.02.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.5602
of 2005.
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the
respondent No.1/writ petitioner, a widow, came up before this
Court by filing writ petition stating that she is entitled for family
pension and other benefits consequent upon the death of her
husband, Sri Savadevo Rai, who was a teacher in Adarsh Hindi
Vidyalaya, Nizamabad, and a prayer has been made for
counting his past service from the date of first appointment i.e.,
28.06.1989 with all consequential benefits. The undisputed
facts of the case further reveal that the husband of the
respondent No.1/writ petitioner was appointed as a Teacher in
Adarsh Hindi Vidyalaya, Nizamabad, on 28.06.1989 against a
regular vacancy that too after following due process of law. He
was absorbed into grant-in-aid post with effect from
03.07.1996. He expired on 28.06.1999. As the terminal dues
were not paid, the respondent No.1/writ petitioner came up
before the learned Single Judge and the respondents therein
came up with a plea that the writ petitioner is entitled for family
pension only from the date of approval of appointment of her
husband i.e., with effect from 03.07.1996 and the services
rendered in the unaided vacancy from 28.06.1989 will not be
taken into account. The learned Single Judge has allowed the
writ petition by directing the respondents therein to take into
account the services rendered by the writ petitioner's husband
with effect from 28.06.1989.
The facts of the case establish that the husband of the
writ petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher
against a regular vacancy after subjecting him to due process of
selection with effect from 28.06.1989. The appointment was
approved on 07.04.1998. A writ petition was also preferred by
the husband of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner during his
lifetime i.e., W.P.No.2788 of 1996 and the same was allowed by
an order dated 23.07.1996. In the aforesaid case, it was held
that in view of Rule 15(4) (e) of the Rules issued in
G.O.Ms.No.524 Education Department dated 20.12.1988, in
case the District Educational Officer does not pass any order,
one way or the other, within three months, the appointment is
deemed to be approved. The rules were repealed on 01.01.1994
vide G.O.Ms.No.1 and in the case of the husband of the writ
petitioner, his case was recommended on 28.06.1989.
Therefore, as held by the learned Single Judge, the repeal will
not help the State Government and the appointment shall be
treated as deemed to be approved as per Rule 15(4)(e) of the
Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.524 dated 20.12.1988. Therefore,
the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ
petition. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with
the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
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
21.03.2022
JSU
