. ^ 'HC010237562009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT PETITION NO: 22278 OF 2009 Between: 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration Urban Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The Director of Municipal Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3. The District Collector, Kakinada, East Godavari District. ...Petitioners AND 1. SmtT Suvarchala Devi, D/o. Late Sri T. Ramachendra Rao, House No. 25-6-11, Ganjamvari Street, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2. The Commissioner, Kakinada Municipal Corporation, Kakinada East Godavari District (R2 is formal Party no relief is sought against them) ...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 issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with the orders dt. 15-07-2009 in OA No. 10627 including all further proceedings relating thereto on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash or set aside the same by holding as erroneous and contrary to law. lA NO: 1 OF 2009fWPMP 28938 OF 2009 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 orders dt. 15-07-2009 in OA No. 10627 including all further proceedings relating thereto on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad pending diposal of the writ petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2010fWVMP 601 OF 20101 Between: 1. Smt T Suvarchala Devi, D/o. Late Sri T. Ramachendra Rao, House No. 25-6-11, Ganjamvari Street, Kakinada, East Godavari District. ...Petitioner/Respondent No.1 AND 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration Urban Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The Director of Municipal Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3. The District Collector, Kakinada, East Godavari District. ... Respondents/writ Petitioners 4. The Commissioner, Kakinada Municipal Corporation, Kakinada East Godavari District ...Respondent No.4 (4*’’ Respondent is not necessary) % Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed in support of the petition vacate the interim order dated 19-10-2009 in WPMP No. 28938/2009 No. 22278/2009 and dismiss the Writ Petition praying that in the circumstances stated the High Court may be pleased in WP with costs. Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR SERVICES Counsel for the Respondent No.1; SRI C V S S SARMA REPRESENTING SRI BUGULU SREETEJA I The Court made the following order: APHC010237562009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3527] WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT PETITION NO: 22278/2009 Between: 1.THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD. 2.THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD. 3.THE DISTRICT, S/0 LINGAIAH AGRICULUTRE LABOURER R/0 GADDIPALLY VILLAGE GARIDEPALLY MANDAL NALGONDA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.SMT T SUVARCHALA DEVI, D/0. LATE SRI T. RAMACHENDRA RAO HOUSE NO. 25-6-11, GANJAMVARI STREET, KAKINADA EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2.THE COMMISSIONER KAKINADA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, KAKINADA EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT (R2 IS FORMAL PARTY NO RELIEF IS SOUGHT AGAINST THEM) ...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 2 pleased toissue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with the orders dt. 15-7-2009 in OA No. 10627 including all further proceedings relating thereto on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash or set aside the same by holding as erroneous and contrary to law and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2009rWPMP 28938 OF 2009 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 orders dt. 15-7-2009 in OA No. 10627 including all further proceedings relating thereto on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad pending diposal of the writ petition and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2010(WVMP 601 OF 2010 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 vacate the interim order dated 19-10-2009 in WPMP No. 28938/2009 in WP No. 22278/2009 and dismiss the Writ Petition with costs Counsel for the Petltioner(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent(S)." 1.BUGULU SREETEJA 3 The Court made the following Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Krishna Mohan) Heard Sri R.S.Manindhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the learned Government Pleader for Services-I for petitioners and Sri Sarma C.V.S.S., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Bugulu Sreeteja, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition was filed questioning the order of the erstwhile Tribunal in O.A. No. 10627 of 2008 dated 15.07.2009. The erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal directed the respondents therein to consider the case of the applicant therein for compassionate appointment to a suitable post within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. The 1®^ respondent’s father worked as Public Works Mastry in Kakinada Municipality who expired on 23.08.1984 during the pendency of his regularization before the government. In pursuance of the orders of the erstwhile Tribunal in O.A. No.883 of 2003 and the orders of the erstwhile combined High Court in W.P.No.20661 of 2008 dated 23.09.2008, the respondent’s father’s services were regularized with effect from 15.11.1980 vide proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.1647, 3. dated 25.11.2008. The said regularization proceedings were issued in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1320, dated 15.12.1981. Accordingly, the family members were given retiral benefits including pension. Though the 1®* respondent made application for compassionate appointment immediately after the death of her father, the same could not be considered by the petitioners herein, as on that day, the services of the deceased employee were not regularized. As there was a specific observation in the orders of the erstwhile High Court in the above said W.P.No.20661 of 2008 dated 23.09.2008 to the effect that for the purpose of compassionate appointment, the 1"' respondent was given liberty to challenge the Memo No.3467/D2/2007-6, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, dated 18.04.2008 by way of separate original application, the respondent was constrained to approach the erstwhile Tribunal with the above said O.A. which was allowed as stated supra. 4. Now that it is the case of the petitioners that the 1®* respondent is not eligible to be considered for the compassionate appointment as she is over aged. But the background of the case and the manner in which the above said proceedings were issued regularizing the services of the deceased employee, have got bearing on the facts and circumstances for this case for ' the purpose of consideration of the respondent under compassionate appointment. As on the date of regularization proceedings were issued, the 1®* respondent became major and there is no dispute that she made an application within time soon after the death of her father deceased employee. 5. 5 6. Since the above said regularization proceedings were issued in favour of the deceased employee in a retrospective manner, there is no point in causing hurdle for the 1 St respondent to be considered for the compassionate appointment by accepting the application submitted by the 1®* respondent in a retrospective manner. The petitioners ought to have considered the application of the 1 St respondent for compassionate appointment in view of the regularization proceedings issued in favour of deceased employee with retrospective effect. Merely because the retirmental benefits and the pension was awarded to the family members of the deceased employee, the petitioners cannot deny the case of the 1 St respondent for compassionate appointment if she is otherwise eligible under law. It is made clear that the petitioners shall consider the case of the 1 respondent for compassionate appointment, only with prospective effect as per the law. The 1®’ respondent cannot claim any benefit notionally also with retrospective effect. St 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT! REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER S To, 1. The Commissioner, Kakinada Municipal Corporation, Kakinada East Godavari District 2. Two CCs to GP for Services I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 3. One CC to Sri Bugulu Sreeteja, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:09/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 22278 OF 2009 DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS