Allowed

Smt S.Neeraja, v. The a.P.Genco

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Jul 2022WP/33495/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking compassionate appointment following the death of her father who was a JPA, the high court disposed of the petition by directing the respondent chief engineer to consider the case within six weeks upon fresh representation, reserving merit for the competent authority.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.3/Chief Engineer to consider petitioner's case for compassionate appointment within six weeks of order production and fresh representation.

Smt S.Neeraja, Vs The a.P.Genco — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.33495 of 2014

¶3

JUDGMENT:-

¶4

Heard Sri G.V.Shivaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶5

The petitioner‟s father Sri Late Ch.Venkaiah, who was posted as Junior Plant Attendant with Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation (for short “A.P. GENCO”), died on 18.08.2010 while on service.

¶6

The petitioner applied for her appointment on compassionate ground on 24.06.2011. But her application was returned to resubmit after getting „No Objection Certificate‟ from Revenue Divisional Officer.

¶7

The petitioner submitted the „No Objection Certificate‟ on 06.07.2012.

¶8

The grievance raised in the writ petition is that inspite thereof the petitioner‟s case for compassionate appointment has not been considered. The writ petition is filed for the following relief:-

¶9

“ It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the respondents in not providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner even after submission of all the required documents after the death of father or petitioner the report submitted by the R.D.O in proceedings No.D.Dis. Al2/1416/2011, dt. 06.07.2012 as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶10

¶11

Sri M.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner‟s case shall be considered by the respondent authorities in accordance with law for which the petitioner may submit fresh representation before the respondents, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of such fresh representation.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, the petition may be finally disposed of.

¶13

Recording the aforesaid submission of the respondents‟ counsel, the writ petition is disposed of finally with direction to the respondent No.3/the Chief Engineer, Dr.Narla Tatarao Thermal Power Station, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District, to consider the petitioner‟s case for appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with law, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of production of copy of this order along with fresh representation.

¶14

It is clarified that the Court has not made any observation on the merits of the entitlement or otherwise of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, which it is for the competent authority to consider.

¶15

No order as to costs.

¶16

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.

¶17

__________________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J

¶18

Date: 12.07.2022 Note:- Issue C.C by 15.07.2022 B/o SCS

¶19

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶21

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.33495 of 2014

¶23

Date: 12.07.2022

¶24

¶25

Scs

Smt S.Neeraja, v. The a.P.Genco

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt S.Neeraja, v. The a.P.Genco

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.L. Srinivas Rao, Vijayawada Vs Commr. and Dir. of Intermediate Education and 3 Ors.

K.Purnachandra Rao, Krishna District Vs Prl Secy, Revenue(Endowments) Dept, Hyderabad and 2 Others

Dr K.Suseela, Vs Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University

P. Jafar Khan, Vs The Registrar, Sri Krishnadevaraya University

Smt. Kapalayamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vinna Mahalakshmi, W/o. M.Ramakrishna Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh