THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN Writ Appeal No.752 of 2025

JUDGMENT:

Heard Mr.Katta Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr.Gurram Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Ms.M.Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for respondent No.3.

2. Appellants, who are the Chief Executive Officers of Zilla Praja Parishad, Karimnagar and Warangal Urban Districts, are aggrieved by the impugned direction dated 07.12.2024 issued in W.P.No.2434 of 2019, whereby the order dated 26.03.2017 rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner-respondent No.1 herein, i.e., the son of the part- time employee, for regularisation of his father’s service was set aside, and a direction was issued to respondent No.3 therein-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Karimnagar District, to pass appropriate orders for appointment of the writ petitioner on compassionate grounds within a stipulated time.

3. Borne from the pleadings on record and bereft of unnecessary details, it can be culled out that the writ petitioner’s father was engaged on part-time basis in the year 1987 under the Zilla Parishad and died in the year 2015 in the same status. He never made any claim for regularisation. After his death, the writ petitioner approached the learned Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), vide O.A.No.2073 of 2016, for regularisation of his father’s service and for compassionate appointment in lieu of his death. Pursuant to the order passed by the learned Tribunal, dated 08.06.2016, the impugned order dated 26.03.2017 was passed by appellant No.1 rejecting the claim, inter alia, on the ground that his father was not eligible for regularisation as per the Telangana Last Grade Services Rules 1992, as he had not completed ten years of service on the cut-off date 25.11.1993. Since his father was not eligible for regularisation as per G.O.Ms.No.112 dated

23.07.1997, writ petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment could not be considered.

4. The learned writ Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of the pleadings on record, held as under:

‘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.3, the father of the petitioner was appointed in the year 1987 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 2015. 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 joined respondents' office in 1987 as part time Sweeper and worked till the date of his demise in 2015. The reasoning and the view taken by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.5916 of 2011, insofar as the claim of the petitioner herein about his father working full-time, is applicable to the case at hand. Petitioner represented to the respondent-Zilla Parishad office to appoint him on compassionate grounds on account of his father's demise after rendering 28 years of service.

7. Having considered t