Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 77 (TS)

Parveen Begum v. High Court of A. P.

2022-02-17

ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, S.C.SHARMA

body2022
JUDGMENT SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,CJ. - Regard being had to the controversy involved in the aforesaid cases, they were heard together and are being decided by a common order. 2. W.P.No.2174 of 2012 has been filed by Smt.Parveen Begum, the widow of late Khaja Shafiuddin, claiming compassionate appointment. 3. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that late Khaja Shafiuddin was working as an Attender in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. A punishment of compulsory retirement was inflicted upon him on 5/5/2007 and undisputedly he expired on 19/7/2007. 4. The widow, being aggrieved by the order of compulsory retirement which was inflicted upon her husband, preferred an appeal against the order of punishment and the appeal was treated as revision by the High Court under Rule 40(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The High Court, by order dtd. 13/3/2008, has modified the punishment of compulsory retirement to that of withholding of three future increments with cumulative effect. 5. A consequential order was passed in the matter on 23/5/2009. Meaning thereby, the order of compulsory retirement was set aside and the order inflicting the punishment of withholding of three future increments with cumulative effect was enforced. The widow submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment and the same was turned down by the High Court by an order dtd. 21/8/2008 and in those circumstances, W.P.No.2174 of 2012 has been filed. 6. It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel appearing for the High Court that the deceased employee was inflicted with the punishment of compulsory retirement and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the application for grant of compassionate appointment was maintainable and the High Court was justified in rejecting the application by an order dtd. 21/8/2008. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, when once the order of compulsory retirement was set aside by the High Court by an order dtd. 13/3/2008 and the punishment of withholding of three future increments with cumulative effect was imposed in the place of compulsory retirement, the High Court could not have rejected the prayer for grant of compassionate appointment. In the considered opinion of this Court, when once the order of compulsory retirement was set aside by the High Court by an order dtd. 13/3/2008 and the punishment of withholding of three future increments with cumulative effect was imposed in the place of compulsory retirement, the High Court could not have rejected the prayer for grant of compassionate appointment. The husband of the widow has to be treated to be in service for all purposes, as the order of compulsory retirement was set aside, and the husband of the widow has expired before attaining the age of superannuation. The case of the widow, as her husband expired before attaining the age of superannuation while in service, was certainly required to be considered on merits for grant of compassionate appointment and could not have been rejected in the manner and method it has been done by the High Court. 8. Another important aspect of the case is that W.P.No.2174 of 2012 was filed in the year 2012 and it has not seen the light of the day so far as final hearing is concerned till date. Meanwhile, the son of the deceased employee along with the widow has filed the second writ petition i.e., W.P.No.23059 of 2021 for grant of compassionate appointment and the widow has categorically stated that her son be considered for grant of compassionate appointment. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, as the High Court has wrongly rejected the claim of the widow, the matter was pending before this Court and now this Court has held that the widow is entitled for grant of compassionate appointment in accordance with law, the case of the son can be considered by the High Court and in the peculiar facts and circumstances, the application of Khaja Fayazuddin, the petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.23059 of 2021 will not be treated as a time barred case, as this Court has held the mother to be eligible for grant of compassionate appointment. 10. The exercise of considering the case of the petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.23059 of 2021 shall be concluded within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 11. With the aforesaid, both the writ petitions stand allowed. 12. The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.