THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

JUDGMENT:

Sri K. Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel appears for the appellant.

Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appears for the respondent/writ petitioner.

Smt. M. Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services-II appears for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. Appellant – Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Vikarabad District, is respondent No.4 in the Writ Petition. Respondent No.1/writ petitioner is the wife of late Ramchandraiah, who passed away on 02.01.2016 while working at Primary School, Kompally, Vikarabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3. Respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No.5240 of 2018 with a prayer that the action of the appellant and respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein in not implementing the order dated 02.08.2016 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.2996 of 2016, for compassionate appointment as per G.O.Ms.No.118 dated 18.08.1999, is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. She has also prayed for issuing a direction to the appellant and respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein to appoint her on compassionate grounds as per G.O.Ms.No.118 dated 18.08.1999 by implementing the orders passed by the Tribunal in the aforesaid O.A. She has also prayed for consequential monetary benefits. The learned writ Court allowed the same vide order dated 30.04.2025, against which, the present Writ Appeal has arisen.

4. In the counter-affidavit filed before the writ Court, the appellant/respondent No.4 has categorically taken a stand in para 7 that pursuant to the order dated 02.08.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A.No.2996 of 2016, the appellant had passed a speaking order dated 22.10.2016 and communicated the same to respondent No.1/writ petitioner as well as her Advocate. The said order was not challenged by respondent No.1.

5. By the said order dated 22.10.2016, the appellant rejected the claim of respondent No.1 on the ground that her husband was appointed as part-time worker on 02.06.1986 but not prior to 25.11.1993 and thus, he had not completed ten (10) years of continuous service in the same cadre as per the norms in G.O.Ms.Nos.112 and 118 dated 23.07.1997 and 18.08.1999 respectively. Therefore, the question of regularization of services of the husband of respondent No.1 did not arise. Hence, the claim of respondent No.1 for her compassionate appointment was not entertained.

6. Without there being any challenge to the said rejection order dated 22.10.2016, the learned writ Court by the impugned order set aside the same and allowed the Writ Petition with the direction upon the appellant to pass appropriate order for compassionate appointment of respondent No.1 within the stipulated period. Therefore, respondent No.4 in the Writ Petition being aggrieved preferred this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased was only a part-time worker and was not eligible for regularization of his services as per G.O.Ms.Nos.212 and 112 dated 22.04.1994 and 23.07.1997, respectively. Therefore, his services could not be regularized. The cases of dependents can be considered for compassionate appointment from the date of issuance of such regularization orders only when the services of deceased part-time workers were regularized. The husband of respondent No.1 was not appointed prior to the effective date i.e., 25.11.1983 nor completed ten (10) years continuous service as per the norms prescribed by the Government vide G.O.Ms.Nos.112 and 118 dated 23.07.1997 and 18.08.1999 respectively. In order to seek an effective relief, it was incumbent upon the writ petitioner to assail the speaking order dated 22.10.2016, by which, the claim for regularization of services of her husband after his death was rejected by the appellant. Even then, the learned writ Court proceeded to quash the said order dated 22.10.2016 and further, directed the appellant to pass appropriate orders for appointment of respondent No.1 on comp