HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.23524 of 2017

ORDER:

Petitioner is the son of late Rajaiah, who was a Sweeper in the 2^nd respondent-Zilla Parishad Office. It is his case that his father was a Part-time Sweeper but worked full-time since 1988. Though his father was eligible for regularization as per G.O.(P) No.112, F & P (FW.PC.III) dept., dated 23.07.1997, his services were not regularized due to delays on the part of the respondent authorities. After expiry of his father in 2016, the petitioner approached respondent-Zilla Parishad Office with a representation dated 13.02.2017 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds as per G.O.Ms.No.118, Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 18.08.1999. The 2nd respondent - Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, by the impugned order dated 16.05.2017, conveyed that it was not possible to consider the petitioner's request on the ground that the petitioner's father was not eligible for regularization as per G.O.Ms.No.565, General administration (service-c), dated 21.10.1992 as he did not possess the required educational qualifications as on

25.11.1993, and as per G.O.(P) No.112, he had 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. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, would contend that his father has been appointed on part-time basis in the respondent-Zilla Parishad in the year 1988, and rendered 26 years of service. He further contends that his father rendered full-time services though he was under part-time category, and therefore his father 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 representation dated 13.02.2017, and having found that the petitioner has not put in 10 years of service as mandated under G.O.(P).No.112 and the petitioner has not possessed the requisite educational qualifications as on 25.11.1993, i.e., the cut-off date as mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.01.1994 and G.O.(P).No.112, dated 23.07.1997, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected, as his father himself was not a regular employee. Learned Standing Counsel further refers to the Memo dated 16.05.2017 issued by respondent No.2-Chief Executive Officer wherein it was stated that the father of the petitioner did not fulfil the conditions of G.O.Ms.No.565, G.O.Ms.No.212 and 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.2, the father of the petitioner was appointed in the year 1988 as Sweeper on part-time basis. Further, it is not in dispute that the petitioner’s father 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 father continued in service until his demise in the year 2016. It is the specific case of the petitioner that his father 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 WP No.1045 of 2007 which was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C.C)

No.10630 of 2011.

6. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner