WP/47483/2018 of Smt. S. Sai Leela Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 18 December 2025

1. SMT. S. SAI LEE YEARS, OCC. DRAUGHTSMAN, AUTHORITY (A.P. DISTRICT-520 002.

1. THE STATE OF A SECRETARY, M DEVELOPMENT D AMARAVATHI, GUN

2. THE COMMISSIO AUTHORITY (A.P.C DISTRICT- 520 002

Petition under Articl circumstances stated in pleased toto issue a Writ of Writ of Certiorari ca HonorableA.P.Administra including the impugned L E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) HE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBE THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT RI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVEND BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR G RIT PETITION NO: 47483/2018 LA, W/O. LATE S. RAMAKRISHNA JUNIOR ASSISTANT ARC A.P. CAPITAL REGION D CRDA), LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWA . AND ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IT UNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION A EPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, NTUR DISTRICT. NER, A.P. CAPITAL REGION D CRDA) LENIN CENTRE, VIJAYAWA

2. ...RES le 226 of the Constitution of India pra the affidavit filed therewith, the High t, order or direction more particularly o alling for the records relating to th ative Tribunal dated 10.7.2018 in O.A Letter No. 15445/131/2009-2 dated 1 DESH

ER DRANATH ROY GEDELA A, AGE. 53 CHITECTURAL EVELOPMENT ADA KRISHNA ...PETITIONER TS PRINCIPAL AND URBAN VELAGAPUDI, EVELOPMENT ADA KRISHNA SPONDENT(S): aying that in the h Court may be one in the nature he order of the A.No.5892/2015 10.2.2014 of the first respondent and consequential Endorsement Rc.No.A2-1572/09 dated 26.3.2014 of the second respondent and set aside or quash the same by further declaring the entire action of the respondents in rejecting the genuine claim of the petitioner for granting seniority, and other allied benefits despite of rendering regular service in pursuance of compassionate appointment proceedings in Rc.No.A2/434/2002 dt. 5.5.2003 of the second respondent is as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, colorable exercise of power, discriminatory, violative of all principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to reckon the service rendered by the petitioner in pursuance of first compassionate appointment procgs. RcNo.A2/434/2002 dt. 5.5.2003 issued by the second respondent for the purposes of her pension and pensionary benefits during the period w.e.f. 5.5.2003 to 6.6.2009 i.e between first appointment proceedings and present second appointment proceedings Rc.No.A2-1610/01 dt.6.6.2009 and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2018

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned order of the HonorableA.P.Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.5892/2015 dated 10.7.2018 including impugned Letter No. 15445/B1/2009-2 dated 10.2.2014 of the 1st respondent and consequential Endorsement Rc.No.A2-1572/09 dated 26.3.2014 of the 2nd respondent and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to receive the Additional Affidavit with Additional Relevant Documents in the WP No 47483 of 2018 and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioner herein / Respondent No.2 in the W.P.No.47483 of 2018 to file counter affidavit in the above Writ Petition and pass

IA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to permit the Petitioner herein/Respondent No.2 in the W.P.No.47483 of 2018 to file counter affidavit in the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. RAYAPROLU SRIKANTH Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP)

2. S PRANATHI

The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) The writ petitioner challenges the order dated 10.07.2018 passed in O.A.No.5892 of 2015 on the file of the learned Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, whereby, the application filed by the writ petitioner seeking regularization of her services from the date of her initial appointment i.e., on 05.05.2003 was rejected.

2. Heard Mr. Rayaprolu Srikanth, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Ms. S.Pranathi, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-The Commissioner of A.P.CRDA. None appeared for the 1st respondent-State.

3. Facts germane to dispose of the writ petition may briefly be stated as follows:

A person by name S.Rama Krishna was originally appointed as a regular employee as a Blue Print Operator in Vijayawada Guntur Tenali Mangalagiri (VGTM) Urban Development Authority. While he was working as Blue Print Operator, he unfortunately died in harness on 12.04.2002. The writ petitioner is his wife. She applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. She was initially appointed as Blue Print Operator on compassionate grounds, but, it was subject to ratification by the Government. She joined duty on 05.05.2003 as Blue Print Operator on compassionate grounds appointed on temporary basis. Thereafter, it was sent for ratification. The Government has rejected the request to ratify the said order on the ground that as on the date of her appointment on temporary basis on compassionate grounds, the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds in Urban Development Authority was not in force. However, she continued to work in the said capacity on temporary basis. While so, considering the representation made by some of the heirs of the deceased employees in Urban Development Authority, the Government has again revived the said scheme of appointment on compassionate grounds in the year 2009. Therefore, after the said scheme was again revived, the writ petitioner was appointed as Blue Print Operator on compassionate grounds on regular basis. She was appointed on regular basis with effect from 06.06.2009. Therefore, she worked as Blue Print Operator appointed on compassionate grounds on regular basis only from 06.06.2009. Thereafter, she retired as Junior Planning Officer, after getting promotion, on 31.10.2025.

4. While she was in service, she approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of filing O.A.No.5892 of 2015 seeking regularization of her services with effect from 05.05.2003, when she was initially appointed on temporary basis. In other words, it is her claim to add the services rendered by her on temporary basis from 05.05.2003 till the year 2009, when she was appointed on regular basis after the scheme of appointment on compassionate grounds was revived, to her regular services. She also claimed for monetary benefits from 05.05.2003 till the year 2009.

5. The Tribunal found that, earlier, as per G.O.Ms.No.699 Municipal Administration and Urban Development, which was issued in the year 1978 on 28.08.1978, the facility of providing employment on compassionate grounds was extended to the employees of the Urban Development Authority. Subsequently, another G.O.Ms.No.195 Municipal Administration and Urban Development dated 24.03.1992 was also issued by way of clarification relating to appointment to be made on compassionate grounds in the department of Urban Development Authority. However, by way of letter dated 21.11.2001 issued by the Municipal Administration, the said practice of appointing the legal heirs of the deceased employees in Urban Development Authority on compassionate grounds was stopped and the said benefit is not extended to the legal heirs of the deceased employees of the said department. As the husband of the writ petitioner died after the said scheme was cancelled, the request of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds was not considered and she was only temporarily appointed and it was sent for ratification and it was denied, in view of the letter dated 21.11.2001. Therefore, the Tribunal held that her services, rendered on temporary basis from 05.05.2003 till she was regularly appointed on compassionate grounds in the year 2009, after the scheme was revived, cannot be added to her regular service. So, it has dismissed her application and rejected her claim. We do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal. When she was appointed only on temporary basis, when the scheme of appointment on compassionate grounds was not in force from 21.11.2001 till the year 2009, she cannot be considered as a regular employee and her services rendered on temporary basis cannot be added to her services as a regular employee, for the purpose of granting monetary benefits like regular pay. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is perfectly sustainable under law and it calls for no interference in this writ petition. However, it is settled law that even the services rendered by a person on temporary basis, if the said employee was subsequently regularised in the same cadre, considering the fact that she has rendered the same services both as a temporary employee and as a regular employee, her services as a temporary employee can be counted to her regular service only for the limited purpose of calculating the pensionary benefits to which she is entitled. But the Tribunal did not consider the same. Therefore, to that effect, we are of the considered view that the writ petitioner is entitled to the said relief of directing the 2nd respondent to count the services of the writ petitioner rendered as temporary employee from 05.05.2003 till she was regularly appointed in the year 2009, only for the limited purpose of calculating her pensionary benefits to which she is entitled after her retirement. So, while computing her length of service for the purpose of fixing the pension and other service benefits, after retirement is concerned, the said temporary services from 05.05.2003 till the year 2009 shall be taken into consideration and counted to her regular service. The order of the Tribunal is modified accordingly.

6. The 2nd respondent shall take appropriate steps to calculate the pension of the writ petitioner and fix the pension and other service benefits after retirement accordingly.

7. The Writ Petition is disposed of, accordingly, with the above direction. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

Date: 19.12.2025 MDP