1 • IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) APHC010182642019 if f/ol rW'.. ^:r'! r,' Si- ’ Uq < >t \ iy \\-v. V. THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 7868 OF 2019 Between: Singampalli Prasanna Durga Ramalayam Street, Vynchipeta, Vijayawada D/o Vijayalakshmi, D. No.8-29-2-2/1, ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Principal Secretary, Government of State of Andhra Pradesh, Ministry of Municipal Administration Affairs , Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravathi 2. The Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. Vijayawada, Krishna District 3. The Additional Commissioner(General), Vijayawada Municipal Corporation ,Vijayawada, Krishna Dt. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to Set aside the impugned Memo No.RCC/24-126107/2018(1) 06-05-2019 whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated being the same as dated Illegal, Arbitrary, Contrary to the principles of natural justice, defective and be vitiated, and consequently issue the order or orders more particularly a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all back wages and consequential benefits. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned order Memo No.RCC/24- 126107/2018(1) dated 06.05.2018, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASULU P Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: M/s. SIREESHA RANI VALLABHANENI, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010182642019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 7868/2019 Between: 1.SINGAMPALLI PRASANNA DURGA,, D/0 VIJAYALAKSHMI, D.NO 8- 29-2-2/1,RAMALAYAM STREET, VYNCHIPETA,VIJAYAWADA ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISRATION AFFAIRS , SECRETARIAT,VELAGAPUDI,AMARAVATHI 2.THE COMMISSIONER, VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT 3.THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER GENERAL, VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DT ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto Set aside the ompugned Memo No RCC/24-126107/2018(1 ) dated 06-05-2019 whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated being the same as lllegal,Arbitrary,Contrary to the principles of natural justice,defective and be vitiated, and consequently issue the order or orders more partularly a writ of mandamus directing t respondents to reinstate the petitioner with ail back wages and consequential benefits lANO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned order Memo No.RCC/24- 126107/2018(1) dated 06.05.2018, pending disposal of the above writ petition 2 lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to receive the list of documents mention in the writ petition to support my contentions in the main writ petition to get appropriate reliefs from the humbly court Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SRINIVASULU P Counsel for the Respondent(S): I.Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities 2.. 3.GP FOR MUNCIPALADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 7868/2019 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: “ to set aside the impugned Memo No.RCC-24126107/2018(1), dated 06.05.2019 whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated being the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the principles of natural justice defective and be vitiated and consequently issue the order or orders more particularly a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all back wages and consequential benefits and to pass Heard Sri P.Srinivasulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-1 for respondent No.1 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein was given employment under compassionate grounds due to the death of her mother. Subsequently, there is a news published in the paper that some irregularities happened in the recruitment of the petitioner under compassionate appointment. Thereafter, the authorities terminated her service the ground that by the date of the compassionate appointment her father was getting pension which was not disclosed in their affidavit. Learned that Government Circular Memo NO.3548/SER.G/A2/2010-8, dated 24.03.2012 has been set aside by the Hon’ble Tribunal in O.A.No.3012 of 2015, dated 20.02.2018. 3. on counsel would submit 4 The issue in the present matter is covered by the judgment of a 4. Co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.34079 of 2022, wherein it is clearly V held that when the spouse of the deceased getting family pension which is not a bar to the dependent children of the deceased to get an employment under compassionate grounds. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is also on the same footing simply because her father is getting pension does not disentitle her to get employment under compassionate grounds. Learned counsel would further submit that the impugned order may be set aside and a direction may be given to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service. Now it is beneficial to refer the relevant portion in the order in W.P.No.34079 of 2022: “This apart, this condition imposed by the Official Respondents vide Circular Memo No.3548/Ser.G/A2/2010-8, dated 24.03.2012 has been expressly set aside by the Hon’ble Tribunal vide Order dated 20.02.2018 in O.A.No.3012 of 2015 (Ex.P.10). This Order of Tribunal has become final against the Respondents, and therefore, the restrictions emerging from the Circular Memo dated 24.03.2012 does not ‘survive’ any more. This aspect of the matter was also dealt with by the Learned Single Judge in no uncertain terms (vide Order dated 11.04.2022 in W.P.No.20266 of 2022 (Ex.P.11). The operative portion of the Order is usefully extracted hereunder:- “22. In W.P.No.16242 of 2013 the Division Bench of this Court held as under; “Yet another defence is taken by the learned counsel that as the wife of the deceased is getting family pension, the applicant is not entitled for compassionate appointment. But the same cannot be accepted. Merely because family pension is being paid to the wife of the deceased, the same is not a ground to deprive the benefit of compassionate appointment under this scheme notified by the Government 5 for the children of the deceased who dies in harness. f For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any valid ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks time to comply the directions issued by the Tribunal and to issue appointment order to the applicant. In view of the request, two months time is extended from today to comply the directions by issuing an appointment order to the applicant. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. No costs. 23. Following the said judgment, a coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.27465 of 2017. in which the G.O, dated 24.03.2012 was involved, held as under;- "It is to be seen that the Division Bench while dealing with the similar issue arising out of Andhra Pradesh order passed by the Administrative Tribunal, held as follows; “Yet another defence is taken by the learned counsel that as the wife of the deceased is getting family pension, the applicant is not entitled for compassionate appointment. But the cannot be accepted. Merely because same family pension is being paid to the wife of the deceased, the same is not a ground to deprive the benefit of compassionate appointment under this scheme notified by the Government for the children of the deceased who dies in harness.' in view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner and take action accordingly. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed." 24. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order in the present case, cannot be sustained, which is hereby quashed. A direction is issued to the respondent No.4/Deputy, Commissioner, Department of Commercial Taxes, West Godavari District, to reconsider the petitioner's case for appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with law and to forward the requisite proposal to consider grant of 6 relaxation in age rule to the 1^^ respondent/ Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue (Commercial Taxes), Amaravathi/Competent Authority. The respondent No. 1 is also directed to consider the grant of relaxation of age rule by a reasoned and speaking order. ” \ \ (emphasis supplied) 20. Therefore, from the above narration of facts, it makes it abundantly clear that the two objections which are raised by the Respondents for denying legitimate claim of the Writ Petitioner under Compassionate Appointment Scheme categorically decided against the Respondents and in favour of the Writ Petitioner.” have been Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that Court may pass appropriate orders, since it is a covered matter. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the petitioner might have attended the said gardener work during the interregnum period and could In absence of such details in the petition. Court may pass appropriate orders for her reinstatement without back wages. 5. earn some amount. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply fairly conceded the same and would submit that Court may pass appropriate orders in the light of the orders passed in W.P.No.34079 of 2022. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material on record as rightly put by learned counsel for the petitioner, that petitioner’s father getting pension cannot be considered as income to the family. In addition to that, in the judgment referred (supra) in W.P.No.34079 of 2022, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by referring earlier judgments of this Court categorically held that though the spouse of the deceased is getting pension 7. for the children of the deceased who are dependants to get there is no bar their employment on compassionate ground. In that view, the Writ Petition is allowed, directing the respondent No.2 to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith without back wages. Further, the petitioner is entitled for all service benefits notionally during the interregnum period. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand 8. . Witness the Hon’ble this Thursday, Twenty Sixth closed. That Rule Nisi has been Chief Justice Sri Dhiraj Singh Thakur on Two Thousand and Twenty Five. made absolute as above the day of June, Sd/-KTATA RAO deputy registrar sectic^officer 1 The Principal Secretary, Government of State of Andhra Pradesh. Ministry of Municipal Administration Affairs , Secretariat, Velagapudi,Amaravathi 2. The commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada, //TRUE COPY// To, Krishna District 3. The Additional Commissioner (GENERAL), Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada, Krishna Dt. Sri Srinivasulu P, Advocate [OPUC] 4. OneCCto 5. One CC to Ms. Sireesha Rani i Vallabhaneni, Standing Counsel for Municipalities [OPUC] 6. Two CCS to OP for Municipal High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies. Administration and Urban Development Ssb (gsg) HIGH COURT £ r \ DATED;26/06/2025 ORDER WP No.7868 of 2019 . <—i\ I 0 3 JUL 2025 m. f ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS