Telangana High Court
The Chief Executive Officer vs B Kistamma on 15 September, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL No. 998 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
Sri K. Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel appears for the
appellant.
Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appears for the
respondent/writ petitioner.
Smt. M. Shalini, learned Government Pleader for
Services-II appears for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. Appellant - Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad
Vikarabad District, is respondent No.4 in the Writ Petition.
Respondent No.1/writ petitioner is the wife of late
Ramchandraiah, who passed away on 02.01.2016 while
working at Primary School, Kompally, Vikarabad Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District.
3. Respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No.5240 of 2018
with a prayer that the action of the appellant and respondent
Nos.2 to 5 herein in not implementing the order dated
02.08.2016 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative
2 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J
Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.2996 of 2016, for
compassionate appointment as per G.O.Ms.No.118 dated
18.08.1999, is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. She has
also prayed for issuing a direction to the appellant and
respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein to appoint her on compassionate
grounds as per G.O.Ms.No.118 dated 18.08.1999 by
implementing the orders passed by the Tribunal in the
aforesaid O.A. She has also prayed for consequential monetary
benefits. The learned writ Court allowed the same vide order
dated 30.04.2025, against which, the present Writ Appeal has
arisen.
4. In the counter-affidavit filed before the writ Court, the
appellant/respondent No.4 has categorically taken a stand in
para 7 that pursuant to the order dated 02.08.2016 passed by
the learned Tribunal in O.A.No.2996 of 2016, the appellant
had passed a speaking order dated 22.10.2016 and
communicated the same to respondent No.1/writ petitioner as
well as her Advocate. The said order was not challenged by
respondent No.1.
3 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J
5. By the said order dated 22.10.2016, the appellant
rejected the claim of respondent No.1 on the ground that her
husband was appointed as part-time worker on 02.06.1986 but
not prior to 25.11.1993 and thus, he had not completed ten
(10) years of continuous service in the same cadre as per the
norms in G.O.Ms.Nos.112 and 118 dated 23.07.1997 and
18.08.1999 respectively. Therefore, the question of
regularization of services of the husband of respondent No.1
did not arise. Hence, the claim of respondent No.1 for her
compassionate appointment was not entertained.
6. Without there being any challenge to the said rejection
order dated 22.10.2016, the learned writ Court by the
impugned order set aside the same and allowed the Writ
Petition with the direction upon the appellant to pass
appropriate order for compassionate appointment of
respondent No.1 within the stipulated period. Therefore,
respondent No.4 in the Writ Petition being aggrieved preferred
this appeal.
4 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
deceased was only a part-time worker and was not eligible for
regularization of his services as per G.O.Ms.Nos.212 and 112
dated 22.04.1994 and 23.07.1997, respectively. Therefore, his
services could not be regularized. The cases of dependents can
be considered for compassionate appointment from the date of
issuance of such regularization orders only when the services
of deceased part-time workers were regularized. The husband
of respondent No.1 was not appointed prior to the effective
date i.e., 25.11.1983 nor completed ten (10) years continuous
service as per the norms prescribed by the Government vide
G.O.Ms.Nos.112 and 118 dated 23.07.1997 and 18.08.1999
respectively. In order to seek an effective relief, it was
incumbent upon the writ petitioner to assail the speaking order
dated 22.10.2016, by which, the claim for regularization of
services of her husband after his death was rejected by the
appellant. Even then, the learned writ Court proceeded to
quash the said order dated 22.10.2016 and further, directed the
appellant to pass appropriate orders for appointment of
respondent No.1 on compassionate grounds.
5 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J
8. On behalf of the writ petitioner, reference is made to the
order dated 06.12.2012 passed by the erstwhile High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No.5916 of 2011 and the
order dated 11.07.2011 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Special Leave Petition (CC) No.10630 of 2011, which arose
out of the order dated 13.11.2009 passed in Writ Petition
No.1045 of 2007 by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra
Pradesh. The said Special Leave Petition was dismissed on the
ground of delay as also on merits. From a perusal of the order
passed in Writ Petition No.5916 of 2011 by the learned
Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, it
appears that the grievance of the petitioner therein was in
relation to the non-payment of minimum wages as per the
Minimum Wages Act, 1948, as they were treated as part-time
Sweepers though working on full time basis. It was in those
circumstances, the learned Division Bench referred to the
order passed in Writ Petition No.1045 of 2007 and dismissal
of aforesaid SLP preferred by the Medical & Health
Department against that.
6 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J
9. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner
submits that the learned writ Court was persuaded by the
reasoning and the view taken by the learned Division Bench in
Writ Petition No.5916 of 2011 while granting the relief as the
case of husband of respondent No.1 herein was similar to that
of respondent Nos.1 to 4 therein. Therefore, upon the
regularization of the services of her husband, respondent No.1
is entitled to compassionate appointment as he had died in
harness.
10. We have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and taken note of the relevant pleadings
referred to hereinabove. In the absence of challenge to the
order dated 22.10.2016 whereby the appellant rejected the
claim of respondent No.1 for regularization of services of her
husband, the learned writ Court ought not to have set aside the
said order. Moreover, upon perusal of the order dated
22.10.2016, it appears that it has been passed in compliance
with the order dated 02.08.2016 passed in O.A.No.2996 of
2016 by the learned Tribunal. The case of the husband of
7 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J
respondent No.1 did not fall under the norms prescribed by the
Government in G.O.Ms.Nos.112 and 118 dated 23.07.1997
and 18.08.1999 respectively, since he was engaged initially as
a part-time worker on 02.06.1986 and he had not completed
ten (10) years continuous service prior to 25.11.1993. He had
expired on 02.01.2016. The appellant therefore refused to
allow the claim of respondent No.1 for regularization of
services of her husband. The order of rejection, though not
under challenge, contains valid reasons for rejection of the
claim of regularization of the services of husband of
respondent No.1. Regularization of the services of husband of
respondent No.1 could not be made as his case was not falling
within the scope of the above Government Orders. The claim
of respondent No.1 for compassionate appointment could not
be considered as her husband, the part-time worker, could not
be treated as died in harness as a regular employee. The
learned writ Court thereby committed error. Therefore, we are
inclined to interfere with in the order passed by the learned
writ Court.
8 HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J
Accordingly, the order dated 30.04.2025 is set aside and
the instant Writ Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as
to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
____________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
_____________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
15th SEPTEMBER, 2025.
kvni
