IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 30882 OF 2012 Between: Smt. Midde Mallamma, W/o.Late Midde Mallaiah, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Sweeper at Sri Bhramaramba Mallikharjuna Swamyvari Devasthanam, Srisailam, Kurnool District ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endts.l) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Boggulakunta, Hyderabad, A.P. 3. The Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Multi Zone-ll, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 4. Sri Bhramaramba Mallikharjuna Swamyvari, Devasthanam, Srisailam, Kurnool District, Rep. by its Executive Officer. Commissioner, Endowments Department, Tilak Road, ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed 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 in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders of 2nd respondent in Rc.No.B1/4826/2012, dated 01-06-2012, where under the one request of the petitioner to provide regular appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected bad, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India, to set aside the same and as consequentially to direct the respondents 2 and 4 to consider the case of the petitioner for regular appointment on compassionate grounds providing last grade scale in the establishment of 4th respondent Temple, as per the Resolution of Trust Board dated 24-12-2003 and in terms of G.O.Ms.No.118. Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 18-08-1999, with all consequential benefits from the date of initial appointment (from the year 2003) treating the same as compassionate appointment, including benefit of service and increments etc. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP. NO: 39387 OF 2012) Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondents 2 and 4 to continue the petitioner as Sweeper on existing terms on contract basis and on payment of consolidate pay being enhanced time to time, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VV N NARASIMHAM Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI V T M PRASAD The Court made the following: ORDER r APHC010321352012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] >i' WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.30882 OF 2012 Between; ...Petitioner Midde Mallamma AND The Government of A.P rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endts. I) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and three others. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.V.N. Narasimham ■ J ...Respondents Counsel for the Respondents: 1. Ld. Govt. Pleader for Endowments for Respondents 1 to 3. 2. Sri V.T.M. Prasad, Ld. Standing Counsel for Respondent No.4. The Court made the following order: 1. The petitioner is challenging the orders dated 01.06.2012 issued by the 2^^^ respondent, whereby the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected. -2- W.P. No.30882 of 2012 2. The Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Department, had sent a proposal to the Commissioner for considering the regularization of the petitioner services. The husband of the petitioner was initially engaged as N.M.R. worker in the year 1990 in the Devasthanam Water Work section. The husband of the petitioner filed a writ petition, in W.P. No. 14667 of 1991 seeking regularisation of his service, wherein this Court directed the Respondents therein to consider the case for regularisation. th The 4 respondent-temple considered the proposal of regularisation of the husband of the petitioner. In the meantime. the husband of the petitioner passed away on 09.07.2002. The petitioner has been engaged on a daily wage basis since the year 2003. The petitioner requested respondents 2 to 4 to consider her case for regular compassionate appointment. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that G.O. Ms No. 118,dt. 18.08.1999, was issued by the Government to facilitate the regularization of the legal heirs of the deceased employees by extending compassionate appointments for the dependents of the deceased employees who were not in regular services. However, the State has decided to consider the case of the dependents of the deceased Daily Wage or N.M.R. or -3- W.P. No.30882 of 2012 % Consolidated pay person or Contingent worker on full time basis or part time worker, for compassionate appointment subject to certain conditions. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of G.O. Ms. No. 118, dt. 18.08.1999. It is also submitted that the respondents regularized the service of as many as 23 employees vide proceedings dated 09.04.2001. Several employees, who joined the services after the demise of the husband of the petitioner were also considered for regularization. The petitioner has been continuously working as a Sweeper in the 4'^ respondent-temple for the last 22 years. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for regularization as she has been in continuous service as a sweeper for the last 22 years and that the petitioner is definitely working against the existing vacancy, which can be filled by regularizing her services. 5. The learned standing counsel for the 4**^ respondent-temple submitted that the 4th respondent has followed G.O.Ms. No. 212, dt.22.04.1994, for regularization of services of N.M.R. employees or considering the case of the petitioner for T -4- W.P. No.30882 of 2012 compassionate appointment and that the husband of the petitioner did not fulfil the condition of completion of five years of service as of the cut of date mentioned in the said G.O., i.e., 25.11.1993. It is also submitted that the husband of the petitioner was not a regular employee and that the case of the compassionate appointment would arise only in the case of the regular employee expiring while in service. On these grounds, the case of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the 4th respondent-temple and perused the record. 7. The Trust Board of the 4*^ respondent-temple, vide proceedings dated 24.12.2003, recommended the regularization of the service of the petitioner in pursuance of G.O. Ms No. 118, dt. 18.08.1999. The learned standing counsel also submitted that the petitioner was paid the last grade pay scale and extended the time scale. However, her services are not regularized considering the proposal of the Trust Board of the 4th respondent-temple dated 24.12.2003. The respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioner for appointment under compassionate terms. -5- W.P. No.30882 of 2012 8. The stand taken by the respondents is that the G.O. Ms. No.212 was strictly followed while considering the case of the regularization of the employees. As seen from the proceedings dated 09.04.2001, as many as 23 employees were regularized. The statement, dated 01.02.1999, showing the seniority of the N.M.Rs., would indicate that none of the employees shown in the statement have completed the five-year service as was mandated under G.O. Ms. No.212, for regularization of their service. In such circumstances, this Court finds that the respondents 9. have not strictly followed G.O. Ms. No.212 while regularizing 23 employees. The respondents exhibited a different yardstick while considering the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate terms. 10. Admittedly, there is an existing vacancy against which the service of the petitioner is being utilized by the 4th respondent- temple by extending time scale. Hence, considering the work of the petitioner for the last 22 years and also keeping in view the proceedings dt.09.04.2001 issued by the Commissioner in compliance of the direction passed by this Court in W.P. No. 14667 of 1991, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the -6- W.P. No.30882 of 2012 r 4th respondent to issue necessary proceedings of appointment under compassionate terms to the petitioner and regularize her services within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It is made clear that the petitioner would not be entitled to differential back wages and any service benefits. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. 12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Dhiraj Singh Thakur on this Wednesday, the Twenty Ninth Day of January, Two Thousand and Twenty Five. SD/- K. KASIRAO ACHARi ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endts.l) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Gollapudi, Vijayawada. 3. The Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Multi Zone-ll, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 4. The Executive Officer, Sri Bhramaramba Mallikharjuna Swamyvari, Devasthanam, Srisailam, Kurnool District. 5. One CC to Sri VV N Narasimham Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Endowments, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. One CC to Sri V T M Prasad Advocate [OPUC] 8. Three CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:29/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.30882 of 2012 r X 0 1 MAR 2125 ^ . Curreni Seciion £ffSPATC%^ ^ ALLOWING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS