Allowed

Smt. Bommena Sunitha v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Sept 2020WP/2270/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order disposing of a writ petition and I.A. regarding compassionate appointment. The Court recalled a prior order due to lack of counsel representation for the 5th respondent and directed authorities to consider claims from both the mother and the major grandchild.

What did the court decide?

I.A. No. 1 of 2020 allowed; original order recalled; Writ Petition disposed of directing authorities to consider claims of both petitioner and 5th respondent and pass orders within six weeks.

Smt. Bommena Sunitha Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P NAVEEN RAO t.A NO. 1 0F 2020

¶5

AND

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 2270 OF 2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Bommena Sunitha, W/o Late Srinivas, Aged about 34 Years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. H.No. 1-1l87, Katkenapally Village, Dharmaram Mandal, Peddapally District.

¶9

...PETTTTONER(S)

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶12

2 The Divisional Forest Officer, Karimnagar West, Karimnagar District

¶13

3 The District Collector, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar.

¶14

4 The District Forest Officer, Karimnagar District

¶15

q Bommena Eswar, S/o Late Srinivas, Aged about 1B years ( Date of Birth being^'12 -5 -2002), R:/o H.No. I - 1- 27311 , Katta Rampur , Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

¶16

(R5 is impleaded as per court order dt. 29.07.2019 in lA No. 2 oI 2019.)

¶17

(R-5 is declared as lvlajor as per Court Order, dated 18.09.2020 in l.A.No.3 of 2020.)

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under A(icle 226 ol lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or orders one in the nature of WRIT OF TMANDAN/US declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 and 41or not passing any orders on Petitioners appointment on the compassionate grounds in place of her deceased husband inspite of representation dated 13.12.2018, 25.04.2018 as well as 09.02.20'16 in the office Respondent no.3 and 4 is illegal and arbitrary against the principal of natural^justice.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶21

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 to direct the Respondent no.3 and 4 to consider the representation dated 13.12.2018 and 25.O4.2O18 along with 09.02.2016 for compassionate appointment in place of the Petitioners deceased husband, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶23

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 to recall the order daled 0210912020 in W.P. No.2270 of 2019 and re-hear the matter in the interests of^justice

¶24

lA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶25

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 to stay the operation of order in W.P. No. 2270 of 2019 Dt. 0210912020 in the interests of^justice

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. K BUCHI BABU

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4:

¶28

GP FOR FORESTS

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.5:

¶30

SRI SATYAM REDDY FOR SRI M. KIRAN REDDY

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

)

¶33

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶34

r.A.NO.1 0F 2020

¶35

AND WRIT PETITION No.227O OF 2O2O

¶36

COMMON ORDER:

¶37

I.A.No. 1 of 2O2O is filed by the 5m respondent in the writ petition contending that when the writ petition was disposed of on O2.O9.2O2O, the name of counsel representing the Sth respondent was not reflected in the cause list printed for the day and the 5th respondent was not aware of listing of writ petition. Whereas, grandmother of the Sth respondent applied on 20.12.2018 and after attaining majority, the 56 respondent also applied for provision of employment on compassionate grounds due to death of his father and therefore opposing the claim of petitioner, who is his mother.

¶38

Along with I.A. the cause list for the day for the Court No.15 is filed at Page No. i2. Item No.32 is the present writ petition. It is seen from the cause list, the name of counsei on record is not printed for the respondents.

¶39

The writ petition is disposed of on O2.O9.2020. The operative portion reads as under:-

¶40

"3. Petitioner claims to have submitted representations on 09.O2.2O16, 25.O4.2O18, and 13.i2.2018. Copies of said representations are filed as exhibits to the writ petition paper book.

¶41

With consent of both counsel, the writ petition is disposed of, without expressing any opinion on merits, directing the Divisional Forest Officer, Karimnagar West, Karimnagar to consider the representation of petitioner submitted on 25.04.2018 duly taking note of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.593, dated 21.10.2011 and to pass orders as expeditiouslv as possible,

¶42

preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.'

¶43

Though the order of this Court only directed consideration of representations submitted by the^petitioner in the writ^petition, having regard to the fact that the counsel did not have the advantage of making submissions on behalf of the Sth respondent, the said order is recalled and accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2020 is allowed.

¶44

With the consent of all learned counsel, without expressing any opinion on merits, the Writ Petition is disposed of as under:-

¶45

i) Petitioner in the writ petition claims to have submitted representations on 09.02.2016, 25.O4.2018, and 13.12.2O18. Copies of said representations are filed as exhibits to the writ petition paper book.

¶46

ii) In continuation to the representation filed by his grandmother on 20.12.2078 requesting the authorities to provide appointment on compassionate grounds to 56 respondent in the writ petition, 5m respondent is also granted liberty to make representation within one week from the date of receipt of the copy ol order.

¶47

iii) The Divisional Forest Officer, Karimnagar West, Karimnagar is directed to consider the representation of petitioner submitted oo 25.04.2018 duly taking note of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.593, General Administration (Ser-C) Department, dated 2 1 . 10.201 1 and the representation submitted by the grandmother of 5fr respondent on 20.12.2O18 and any fresh

¶48

¶49

representation that may be submitted by the Stt, respondent, duly consider both claims and pass orders assigning reasons in support of the decision as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶50

SD/-B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, Forest Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶55

2, The Divisional Forest Officer, Karimnagar West, Karimnagar District

¶56

The District Collector, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar.

¶57

The District Forest Officer, Karimnagar District

¶58

One CC to SRl. K BUCHI BABU Advocate [OPUC]

¶59

One CC to SRl. M. KIRAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]

¶60

Two CCs to GP FOR FORESTS (TG) ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

B. Two CD Copies

AVS

.^-

HIGH COURT

DATED:18/09/2020

ORDER

1 Be S,A15
(
q
(,o 28SEP2M
o
.<br>(+* *
oFs PAT cHgO

¶68

t.A NO. 1 0F 2020 AND

¶69

WP.No.2270 of 2019

¶70

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶71

@#6*

Smt. Bommena Sunitha v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Bommena Sunitha v. The State of Telangana

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

Battapothula Srinu Vs The State of Telangana

Ravula Vimala Vs The State of Telangana

Jatothu Manjula Vs The Union of India

Pilli Apparao, Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

Alya Naik Vs The State of Telangana

T.Mohan Kumar Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others