Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 830 (TS)

T. Mahender v. State of Telangana

2025-06-09

K.LAKSHMAN

body2025
ORDER : K. LAKSHMAN, J. Heard Mr. G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for General Administration Department (GAD) appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.2 in rejecting the case of the petitioner for providing employment under the Scheme of compassionate appointment for the death of his father in extremists violence is illegal and for a consequential direction to provide the employment to the petitioner. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that his father, Tejavath Badyanayak, the President of Mandal Praja Parisad, Gandhari Mandal, was killed by the extremists at Annapurna Theatre of Gandhari Village and Mandal on 06.12.1995 on the ground that he was a police informer. The Police, Gandhari Police Station also registered a case in Crime No.79 of 1995, dated 06.12.1995. The police also declared that the death of his father was due to barbarous act of Naxalites. At the time of incident, his father was young, aged about 30 years and only bread-winner of his family. He belongs to the Scheduled Tribes (ST). 4. As per G.O.Ms.No.469 , dated 08.11.1996 implemented w.e.f. 26.02.1996, there is no relief to the family members suffered in extremist violation prior to 1996. Subsequently, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O.Ms.No.504 of General Administration (SC.A) Department, dated 11.08.2008, directing the District Collectors to consider the applications for employment where the civilians were killed in extremist violence prior to 26.02.1996 also. 5. Pursuant to the said G.O.Ms. No.504, the brother of the petitioner submitted an application seeking employment. The same was rejected on the ground that he was minor as on the date of death of his father. Respondent No.1 also issued G.O.Ms.No.50 , dated 21.02.2014, wherein Clause - 5 says that the Government after careful examination of the recommendation of the Committee, agreed to provide a financial assistance of Rs.5.00 lakhs to the families of civilians who are killed in extremist violence, if there is no eligible family member in the family to provide compassionate appoint. This assistance is extended to all previous cases where no employment was provided and the same will be in addition to the ex gratia already paid. 6. This assistance is extended to all previous cases where no employment was provided and the same will be in addition to the ex gratia already paid. 6. Despite the order dated 06.11.2010 passed by this Court in W.P. No.24117 of 2010 observing that the dependants would either be age barred or under aged (minor) at the relevant point of time, still the benefit deserved to be extended. Such benefit was not extended to the petitioner. But, the Government wanted to extend such benefit only to the eligible candidates. The petitioner acquired right to submit application only in the year 2008. The order dated 06.11.2010 in W.P. No.24117 of 2010 was carried by the Government in appeal vide W.A. No.69 of 2012. Vide order dated 20.02.2012, the Division Bench of this Court upheld the ratio laid down by learned Single Judge. As against the said order dated 20.12.2012 in the writ appeal, the Government carried the matter to the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide SLP (Civil) No.9521 of 2013 and the said SLP was also dismissed vide order dated 24.02.2014. 7. Thereafter, the Government had issued G.O.Rt.No.2493/ GAD (Services), dated 07.09.2015 stating that all GOs., such as G.O.Ms.No.504 etc. are cancelled and they are not valid. Learned Government Pleader for General Administration Department (Telangana) gave opinion, dated 12.11.2015 stating that G.O.Rt.No.2493 has got prospective effect and the same is applicable in future cases and that G.O.Ms.No.504 was withdrawn w.e.f. 07.09.2015 and prior to that date, the Government accepted the ratio and offered jobs. 8. In the year 2015, the mother of the petitioner was misguided to opt ex gratia of Rs.5.00 lakhs as per G.O.Ms.No.50 , but she did not receive the same. Therefore, the right for job under G.O.Ms.No.50 4 is in force. As per the said G.O.Ms.No.50 4 and 50, the petitioner gave an application dated 03.02.2020 to provide employment. Since it was not considered, he filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.16195 of 2020 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 22.09.2020 directing the official respondents to consider his representation. Pursuant to the same, the Superintendent of Police, Kamareddy submitted the report dated 15.10.2020 to respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically. The mother of the petitioner made a representation dated 19.10.2020 to respondent No.2 that her elder son, Mr. Pursuant to the same, the Superintendent of Police, Kamareddy submitted the report dated 15.10.2020 to respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically. The mother of the petitioner made a representation dated 19.10.2020 to respondent No.2 that her elder son, Mr. Tejavath Sathnam Singh has filed an application in the year 2008 as per G.O.Ms.No.50 4 , but the same was not considered on the ground that he was a minor as on the death of his father and now he is suffering from health problems and requested to provide employment to the petitioner herein being her younger son. 9. The District Collector sought clarification from the Special Chief Secretary, GAD as to whether the application of the petitioner could be considered as per G.O.Ms.No.504 . Vide Memo, dated 02.03.2021, respondent No.1 clarified and directed respondent No.2 to take further action in pursuance of the order in W.P. No.16195 of 2020 and also orders issued in similarly situated cases vide Memos dated 17.08.2015 and 26.02.2019. Respondent No.2 without considering the facts of the case and also the memo, dated 02.03.2021, rejected the case of the petitioner vide memo, dated 23.04.2021 on the grounds: a) application filed by his brother was rejected; and b) application of the petitioner was not received in 2008; 10. Thus, the order passed by respondent No.2 is illegal and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.50 4 and 50. Hence, the present writ petition. 11. Respondent No.2 filed counter opposing the relief sought by the petitioner contending as follows: i) The application dated 03.12.2020 submitted by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he was under aged/minor and not qualified for appointment as on the date of death of his father vide letter dated 06.11.2009. ii) The petitioner submitted his application only on 03.02.2020 after exhaust of thirteen (13) years period after expiry of three (03) months period given in G.O.Ms.No.504 . Thus, he is not entitled to seek compassionate appointment. iii) No family member of the deceased civilian, late Badya Nayak submitted application in 2014 for sanction of Rs.5.00 lakhs in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.50 including the petitioner herein within a period of three (03) months. iv) The petitioner has not submitted any application in 2008 and he only submitted on 03.12.2020. 12. iii) No family member of the deceased civilian, late Badya Nayak submitted application in 2014 for sanction of Rs.5.00 lakhs in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.50 including the petitioner herein within a period of three (03) months. iv) The petitioner has not submitted any application in 2008 and he only submitted on 03.12.2020. 12. In the light of the aforesaid rival submissions, it is relevant to note that the object and issuance of the aforesaid GOs is to provide employment to the dependant family the person killed in extremist violence, to save the said family from financial problem. In case of death of major member of the family/sole bread winner in extremist violation, family will be saved financially. With the said object and to support the said family, the Government has issued the aforesaid GOs. 13. Vide G.O.Ms.No.469 , dated 08.11.1996, the Government authorized the District Collectors to issue orders in respect of any department where there is a vacancy for appointment of a person upon the level of Junior Assistant/Typist depending upon the qualifications of the applicant. The District Collectors were also authorized to grant relaxation or age on case to case basis. 14. Vide G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 04.03.1998, the Government has issued orders allowing a minimum period mentioned therein to acquire requisite educational qualifications. In case of a minor, he can seek relief and relaxation of upper age/educational qualifications when the dependant family seeking employment in the category of Clause- IV. The said orders were implemented w.e.f. 26.02.1996. 15. The Government has issued another G.O.Ms.No.504 , dated 11.08.2008 stating that G.O.Ms.No.469 dated 08.11.1996 is applicable to the cases of killing of civilians occurred prior to 26.02.1996 also, provided that the age and educational qualifications of dependant family member seeking employment shall be satisfied as on the date of death of the respective civilians. The concessions allowed in G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 04.03.1998 are also applicable to the applicants. 16. Thereafter, it was brought to the notice of the Government that in many cases where Civilians are killed in extremist/terrorist violence, there are no eligible family members to take up employment. Since the date to be reckoned with, is the date of death of Civilians and there are cases where the family member is a minor or crossed the employable age or does not possess the required educational qualification. Since the date to be reckoned with, is the date of death of Civilians and there are cases where the family member is a minor or crossed the employable age or does not possess the required educational qualification. The families of the civilians killed in extremist/terrorist violence are approaching the Government subsequently when the kin of the deceased attains employable age and after acquiring requisite qualification. The policy envisages providing employment within a year if there is a suitable and eligible family member of the civilian killed in extremist/terrorist violence. However, considering the fact that family is put to disadvantage as assistance is not provided vis-à- vis with the other victims where employment is provided, the issue has been considered and proposed to compensate them with additional financial assistance if no employment is given i.e., in cases where there is no eligible family member at the time of death of civilian is extremist violence. The issue has been referred to the High Powered Cabinet Sub-Committee constituted by the State Government, and the said Sub-Committee recommended to provide a financial assistance of Rs.5.00 lakhs to the families of civilians who are killed in extremist violence, if there is no eligible family member in the family to provide compassionate appointment. 17. On consideration of the said recommendation of the Committee, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.50 , dated 21.02.2014 to provide a financial assistance of Rs.5.00 lakhs to the families of civilians who are killed in extremist violence, if there is no eligible family member in the family to provide compassionate appointment. The said assistance will be extended to all previous cases where no employment was provided to the families of civilians killed, after due verification by respective District Collector and Superintendent of Police. The assistance will be in addition to the ex gratia already paid. 18. In the said G.O., it is also stated that the financial assistance in lieu of employment shall be paid to the parents in case of the deceased Civilian is unmarried. In case the deceased Civilian was married the ex gratia shall be distributed to the wife, children and parents in equal proportion. If the parents of the deceased Civilian are not alive, the same shall be paid to spouse and children in equal proportion. 19. As discussed above, extremists killed the father of the petitioner on 06.12.1995. In case the deceased Civilian was married the ex gratia shall be distributed to the wife, children and parents in equal proportion. If the parents of the deceased Civilian are not alive, the same shall be paid to spouse and children in equal proportion. 19. As discussed above, extremists killed the father of the petitioner on 06.12.1995. A case in Crime No.79 of 1995 was registered on 06.12.1995. The police have also declared the death of the father of the petitioner is by naxalites. 20. It is relevant to note that the petitioner’s brother i.e., Mr. Tejavath Sathnam Singh, has submitted an application in terms of the aforesaid GOs seeking employment. The same was rejected on the ground that he was under age and not qualified for appointment as on the date of death of his father. The District Collector, Nizamabad, has issued proceedings dated 06.11.2009 accordingly. After lapse of eleven (11) years, the petitioner herein has submitted a representation dated 03.02.2020 seeking employment in terms of the aforesaid GOs. The same was not considered. Therefore, he has filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.16195 of 2020. Vide order dated 22.09.2020, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. 21. In compliance with the said order, vide Memo dated 23.04.2021, respondent No.2 has rejected the request made by the petitioner for employment on compassionate ground on the ground that the petitioner’s case is not falling within the parameters of the aforesaid G.Os. It s also further stated that similar request made by the petitioner’s brother was rejected by the District Collector n vide proceedings dated 06.11.2009. 22. As rightly held by respondent No.2, the case of the petitioner herein is not falling within the parameters of the aforesaid GOs. As rightly observed by respondent No.2, the application submitted by the petitioner’s brother was rejected by respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated 06.11.2009. After elapse of almost eleven (11) years, the petitioner has submitted the aforesaid representation dated 03.02.2020 seeking employment. His case is not falling within the aforesaid parameters. On consideration of the said aspects only, vide proceedings dated 23.04.2021, respondent No.2 rejected the request made by the petitioner. 23. After elapse of almost eleven (11) years, the petitioner has submitted the aforesaid representation dated 03.02.2020 seeking employment. His case is not falling within the aforesaid parameters. On consideration of the said aspects only, vide proceedings dated 23.04.2021, respondent No.2 rejected the request made by the petitioner. 23. It is relevant to note that Mr. G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the order dated 24.02.2025 in W.P. No.1767 of 2022 , sought financial assistance of Rs.5.00 lakhs to the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.50 , dated 21.02.2014. Perusal of the said order would reveal that in the said case, mother of the deceased was alive. Therefore, on consideration of the said aspect, this Court directed the respondents therein to extend the said financial assistance to the mother of the deceased therein. 24. In the present case, the petitioner herein has not challenged the memo dated 23.04.2021. He has not stated about the status of his mother. As discussed above, his brother has already submitted a representation seeking employment and the same was rejected. Therefore, the petitioner, his brother and mother, if alive, have to submit a representation to respondent No.3 - District Collector, Kamareddy District, with a request to provide financial assistance in terms of G.O.Ms.No.50 , dated 21.02.2014, and it is for respondent No.3 to consider the same. 25. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.50 , dated 21.02.2014, to respondent No.3 with a request to provide financial assistance, within a period of one (01) month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, and on receipt of such representation, respondent No.3 shall consider and dispose it of in accordance with the aforesaid G.O. and law within four (04) weeks thereafter. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.