THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

ORDER:

Petitioner is the wife of late Ramchandraiah, who was Sweeper in the 4th respondent-Zilla Parishad Office and rendered more than 28 years of service and while working at Primary School, Kompally, Vikarabad Mandal, Rangareddy District expired on 02.01.2016. It is her case that her husband was a Part-time Sweeper but worked full-time since 1986. Though her husband was eligible for regularization as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, his services were not regularized due to delays on the part of the respondent authorities. After expiry of her husband in 2016, the petitioner approached respondent-Zilla Parishad Office with a representation dated 26.03.2016 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds as per G.O.Ms.No.118, Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 18.08.1999. As her request was not considered, she approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, by filing O.A.No.2996 of 2016. The Tribunal, after hearing respective counsel, directed the respondent Nos.1 to 3 therein to consider the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in the light of G.O.Ms.No.118, and pass order within eight weeks. The 4th respondent-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, by the impugned order dated 22.10.2016, conveyed that it is not possible to consider the request of the petitioner on the ground that the husband of the petitioner was not eligible for regularization as per G.O.Ms.No.118, as he has not completed

10 years of service.

2. Heard Mr.Amrith Raj, learned counsel representing Mr.Ch.Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Zilla Parishad for respondent No.4.

Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, would contend that her husband has been appointed on part-time basis in the respondent-Zilla Parishad in the year 1986, and rendered 28 years of service. He further contends that her husband rendered full-time services though he was under part-time category, and therefore her husband is eligible for consideration under G.O.Ms.No.118, however he was not regularized.

4. Per contra learned Standing Counsel would submit that the respondent authorities have considered the case of the petitioner as per the orders of the Tribunal in O.A.No.2996 of 2016, and having found that the husband of the petitioner has not put in 10 years of service as mandated under G.O.(P).No.112, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected, as her husband himself was not a regular employee. Learned Standing Counsel further refers to the Memo dated 22.10.2016 issued by respondent No.4 - Chief Executive Officer wherein it was stated that the husband of the petitioner did not fulfil the condition of G.O.Ms.No.118 and therefore his claim for regularization was rejected.

5. Having considered the respective submissions and perusing the record, it is pertinent to note that even as per the counter affidavit of respondent No.4, the husband of the petitioner was appointed in the year 1986 as Sweeper on part- time basis. Further, it is not in dispute that the petitioner’s husband was still in service by the date of consideration of his case for regularization under G.O.(P) No.112, though he is stated to be not eligible by the respondents. Be that as it may, petitioner’s husband continued in service until his demise in the year 2016. It is the specific case of the petitioner that her husband rendered full-time services though he was a part-time Sweeper. Petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.5916 of 2011, which is a similar case where the respondents therein rendered full-time services though they were said to be “part-time”, and they approached this Court aggrieved by non-payment of wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. This Court directed payment of minimum wages, based on the earlier judgment of this Court in