Magidi Ravi v. The Tahsildar, And Another

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.21597 OF 2019 DATED :30.09.2019 Between :

Magidi Ravi S/o.Late Pochaiah, Age : 26 yrs, Occu : Un employee, R/o.Murmoor Village.

..

Petitioner And The Tahsildar, Anthargaom Mandal, Anthargaom Post, Peddapalli District & another.

.. Respondents This court made the following :

- 2 - THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.21597 OF 2019 ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

2.

Petitioner claims that his father was appointed as Sunkari in Kothwal Village of Murmoor in the year 1978. He died on 12.09.2017. However, according to the petitioner his father became sick and was not able to continue his job since the year 2004 and in the place of his father, he was doing the same job till the year 2018. After the death of father of petitioner, petitioner applied to provide appointment on compassionate grounds in the vacancy upon the death of his father. The said request of petitioner was rejected by order dated 27.09.2018, on the ground that at the time of death of father of petitioner, he was aged more than 72 years. Therefore, the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds is not applicable to him. Aggrieved by the said rejection, this writ petition is filed. 3.

Rule 8 of the Telangana Village Revenue Assistant Service Rules, deals with appointment on various contingencies. According to Sub-Rule (3) which is an exception to Rules 1 and 2, the spouse/dependant children of a Village Revenue Assistant who dies in harness before attaining the age of 65 years may be appointed as Village Revenue Assistant. There are three conditions required for compliance before a person seeks appointment under this clause. Firstly, an employee should not attain the age of 65 years before his death, secondly, there

- 3 - should be no other earning member in the family of the deceased Village Revenue Assistant and thirdly, the application should be made within one year from the date of death.

4.

Apparently, the primary condition i.e., the deceased employee ought not to have attained the age of 65 years, is not complied in this case, as the father of petitioner died at the age of 72 years. I therefore, do not see any illegality in rejecting the request of petitioner for provision of appointment on compassionate grounds.

5.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that since the year 2004, petitioner was working i.e., for more than 14 years and having regard to the work rendered by him, atleast the respondents ought to have granted the relief of appointment. I am not expressing any opinion on this issue and it is open to the petitioner to work out his remedies as may be available in law.

6.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 30th September, 2019 Rds