Dismissed

The Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Ltd. v. B. Arvind Reddy

Telangana HC6 Dec 2023WA/1031/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The bench dismissed two writ appeals filed by TS Genesis against a Single Judge order allowing a petition for compassionate appointment. The Court held that the rejection was discriminatory as other cases with higher family pensions were approved, justifying the lower court's decision to reconsider the case.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeals dismissed; orders dated 31.03.2023 in W.P.Nos. 2288 and 35834 of 2022 left undisturbed.

The Telangana State Power Generation… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE^{SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND^{KUMAR SHAVILI} AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO}

¶6

WRIT APPEAL Nos. 1031 AND 936 0F²⁰²³

¶7

WRI T APPEAL NO. 1031 OF²⁰²³

¶8

writ Appeal under clause¹⁵ of the^{Letters Patent preferredagainstthe orderdated} 31.03.2023 in Writ Petition^{No. 35834 of 2022 on lhe file of the HighCourt.}

¶9

Between:

¶10

The Telangana State Power Generation^{CorporationLtd, Rep.by its Chairman} and lvlanaling Director,^Vidyuth Soudha,^{Khairatabad, Hyderabad.}

¶11

The Director^(HR). Telanqana State^{Power Generation CorporationLtd.,} Rep.by its Chiirmhn and Managing^{Direclor, Vidyuth Soudha,Khairatabad,} Hyderabad.

¶12

The Superintendent Engineer^{(O andM), RTS-B,TS GENCO'Ramagundam,} Peddapalli District.

¶13

...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS^No.2 to⁴

¶14

AND

¶15

B. Arvind Reddy, S/o. Late B. Ammi Reddy,^{Ex-FM-Gr-lV,aged} -about²⁶ years, Occ. Uir-employee, RJo. H.No.2-48, P.O. Pedampet^Antergoan lr,landal, Peddapalli District.

¶16

....RESPONDENT/PETITIONER^IN W.P.No.35834/2022

¶17

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Energy^{Power and} Environment Department, T.S. Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶18

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶19

¶20

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶21

Petition under Section¹⁵¹ CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the HighCourt may be pleasedto} suspend the Operation of the Order^{passed in WP No. 35834 ol 2022'} dt.3110312023^pending disposal of the main^{Writ Appealin the interestof justice.}

¶22

Counsel for the Appellant:^M/s.V. UMA^{DEVI,S.C. FOR GENCO}

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI^P. RAVI SHANKER

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP^{FOR SERVICES}

¶25

WRIT APPEAL NO: 936 OF 2023

¶26

Writ Appeal under c ause 15 of the Letters Patent^preferred against the order^dated 31.03.2023 in the W P.No. 2288 of^{2022 on the} file of^{the High Court.}

¶27

Between

¶28

'1. The Chairman and Managing Director, Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Limited and TS TRANSCO, Vidyut Soudha,^{Khairathabad,} Hyderabad.

¶29

The Chief Engineer O and M, Kothagudem Thermal Power Station, VllStage, Paloncha, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶30

The Divisional Engineer, Technical/Director HR KTPS, Paloncha,^Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶31

The Chief General Manager/ADMA/S, Vidyut Soudha, Khairathabad, Hyderabad 500 004 TS.

¶32

...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS No.2 to 5

¶33

AND

¶34

THOTA JASWANTH, S/o. Sri Late Thota Venkateswara Rao, Aged About 22 Years, Occ: Unemployee, R/o. H.No.8-1-221, Sumitrasai Agency Building, 3rd Floor, KSP Road Beside Bhadradri Bank, Paloncha, Bhadradri Kothagudem Dist^- 507 115.

¶35

...RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER lN W.P.No.228812022

¶36

¶37

2 The State of Telangana, Rep. by^{its Principal Secretary, Power and Energy} Department, Secretariat at^Hyderabad.

¶38

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶39

lA NO: 2 OF 23

¶40

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{filedin supportof the petition, the High Court may be pleasedto} suspend the^{Operation of the Order passedin WP No- 2288 ol 2022' dl'} 31t0312O23^{pending disposal of the mainWrit Appeal in the interestof justice}

¶41

Counsel for the^{Appellant: M/s.V. UMADEVI, S.C. FOR GENCO} Counsel forthe^{RespondentNo.1:SRILINGAMPELLY RAVINDER} Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.2:GP FOR SERVICES}

¶42

The Court made the following:^{COMMONJUDGMENT}

¶43

¶44

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶45

AND

¶46

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶47

IIRIT APPEAL Nos.1O31 and 936 of2023

¶48

COMMON JUDGMENTi (Per Hon'blc- Si Justice Abhinantd Kunar SLtrtuili)

¶49

Both these \lrrit appeals are being disposed of by way of a common order since the issuc raised in these writ.ippeals is one and the same

¶50

Both thcse writ appeals are filed aggrievcd by the common order d:r[ed 31 .O3.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.2288 and 35834 of 2022, respectively

¶51

Heard SmL. V.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel

¶52

appearing for the appellants arld Mr. P.Ravi Shanker and Mr. Lingampally Rarvinder, lea,rlled counsel lor rcspondent No.1, in both the writ appeals

¶53

For the sake of convenience, the facts in Writ Petition No.2288 ot 2022 are herellnder discttssed.

¶54

1 AK5, I & RRII,l wa loail &^q36 20:.)

¶55

It has been contcndcd b-y tltc learnecl Stanciing Counsel appearing lor the a-ppeliants thal responcient No, i^,s father was working as Dozer Operatr:r in Kothagudem Thermal Power Statir_rn (KTPS), Operation & Maintenance (O &, M) u'ith tire appellants and he has ex1;ired on 10.09.2019 r.r'hile he was in service. Thereafterw.ar-d..;, respcrndent l,,lo.l has submitted an applir:ation seeking appointment on compassionate grounds and ttre appellants have exatnirrecj. the financial status of respondent No.1,s iamili. and it rvas found that respondent No.1 s mother u,as receiving lamilv pension o1 Rs.41,823.00 pcr month and ttre grar clmc.'ther of' respondent No.1 ',r'as receii,ing pension of Rs.3O,000.OO per rnonttr. Considering the financial status r;i' resporrclent No. 1,s family. the appellants have rejected the case of the :rppellants uii-le orders dated 27.03.2021. Ag,grieved by the said rejection orders, respondent No. I has approacheC ltris Ccurt by liling W.P,No.2288 of 2022 and the learnecl Single .Iudge $ras pleased to allow the writ petition by setting aside the orders of rejection dated 27.03.2021 and directing the appellants to reconsider the case of respondent No.1 for providing appointment on compassionate grounds vrithout taking into

¶56

,,^(S,,] & RRN,] \:r I 0:l I -3" 936 2023

¶57

¶58

account the^{famrly pension being received by the mother and} graidmother of respondent^No. 1, within twelve (12)^weeks from the date of^receipt of copy of the order, without appreciating^{an)' of the contentions raised by the appellants.}

¶59

Learned Standing Counsel lor the appellants had further contended that the^scheme itself contemplates that the cases where the family is in financial distress alone are entitled for consideration of appointment on^{compassionate} grounds. Learned Standing Counsel lor the appellanls further contended that the issue u,as considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sashi Kumarl, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is not for the Courts to assess the financial stability of an employee, it is a1u,'ays for the^employer to assess wl-rether the Iinancial status of an employee is sound or not.^'lherefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in allowing the writ petition by setting aside the orders of rejection dated 27.O3.2021 and directed the appellants to reconsider the case of respondent No.1 for appointment on com passionate grounds. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ '^{2019(3) SCC653}

¶60

4 AKs,] & R RN, \a IOJi &936 202 I

¶61

i I I I I I iI I 1 i a

¶62

appeals bJ, setting aside the order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.p.Nos.228B and. 35834 of 2022 and allow the writ appeaJs.

¶63

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 had contended that the learned Single Judge was jtrstified in setting aside the orders of rejection dated 27.O3.2021 and rightly directed the appellants to reconsider the case of respondent No. 1 for appointment on compassionate grounds r.r,ithout taking into account the family perrsion which is being reccived by respondent No. 1 's mother anri grandmothcr. Lcarned counsel for respondent No.l has further drawn our atteiltion to sei,eral other cases trhere the appellants have given appointmen t on compassionate grounds. 'lhe cases where the family was receiving more than Rs.50,000.0O to Rs.SO,OO0.OO pension were considered and granted appointment on compassionate grounds and when it comes to the case of respondent No.i, the appellants are trying to discriminate the case of respondent No. 1 and rejected his case without taking into account that his grandmother, wl-ro is alleged to have been receiving pension, as she is tiving as a separate family from

¶64

AT,S,J & R RN,] rva LO3l l.936 2023

I I

respondent No.I's family. Therefore, on the ground^of discrimination also, the iearned Single^{Judgewas justified in} setting aside the rejection orders dated 27^{.O3.2O21 and} rightly directed the appellants to reconsider the case of respondent No. 1 for appointment on compassionate grounds Therefore, there are no merits in the writ appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed

¶69

B. This Court, having considered the rival

¶70

submissions ma.de by both the parties, is ol the considered vieu' that a perlLsal of lhe record rnhich rvas produced by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants discloses that several cases n'ere considered by the appellants for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds in spite of the fact that certain emoloyees' families were receiving family pension of more than Rs.50,000.00 to Rs.80,000.0O. When the appellants have considered the cases of such of those family members '"vho were receiving family pension of more than Rs.50,00O/ to Rs.BO,OOO l-, tlne question of rejecting the case of responder-rt No.1 by the appellants on the ground that the family members of respondent No.1 are receiving family pension does not arise and on that ground alone, the

¶71

6 AKS, J & RRN.] !a oil & 9:16 20tf

¶72

appellants !,,ere not jLrstified in rejecting the case of respondent No.1. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the orders of rejection dated 27.O3.2021 and rightly directed the appellants to reconsider the case of respondent No.1 for grant of appointment on compassionate grournds. Thr:rcfore, this Court is not ir-rclir-rcd to interfcrc with the orders dated 31 .O3.2O23 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.2288 and 35834 of 2022,.

¶73

dismissed. No costs.

¶74

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pendir-rg il any, shall stand closcd

¶75

Sd/- CH. VENKATESWARLU DEPUTY REGISTRAR

\ \

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

One CC to M/s. V.^{UMA DEVI, S.C. for GENCO [OPUC]}

¶81

One CC to SRI^{P. RAVI SHANKER,Advocate [OPUC]}

¶82

One CC to SRI LINGAMPELLY^{RAVINDER,Advocate [OPUC]}

¶83

4.TwoCCstoGPforservices,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶84

Two CD Copies

MP BS

HIGH COURT

DATED:0611212023

..: . i l, .i l-j{ ,6
c
ii il tr;i; pur._4
*
a)a
.r.!AfC.11:, Lr
i
COMMON JUDG

¶91

W.A.Nos. 1031 AND 936 OF 2023

¶92

DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEALS

¶93

prl.il

¶94

WITHOUT COSTS

The Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Ltd. v. B. Arvind Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Ltd. v. B. Arvind Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Secretary (Union of India) and 4 Others Vs Shri B.Chinna Rao and 55 Others

C. Dwaraknath Vs K. Sudheer Kumar

Uttam Kumar Das Vs Union of India,Scy,H.R.D,New Delhi,and 6

Mr. Harsh Jain Vs M/s Kousthubham Buildtech Private Limited

The Chairman and Managing Director Vs Thota Jaswanth

The Union of India Vs The Central Administrative Tribunal