Partly allowed

Aleti Susheela v. M/s Singareni Company colliries Ltd.

Telangana HC21 Aug 2023WP/1391/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition questioning issuance of death benefits and dependent employment to respondent No.4, daughter-in-law of deceased and accused in suicide case. Court directed respondents to consider petitioner's representation within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider petitioner's representation dated 24.12.2018 within six weeks.

Aleti Susheela Vs M/s Singareni Company… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132s7 l

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 1391 OF 2019

¶7

Betwee n

¶8

Aleti Susheela, W/o shankar Mohan aged about 55 years Occ- House wife R/o H.No. 7-46, NTR colony Tandur post and lt4andal lt4ancherial Drstrict.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . lv1/s Singareni Company colliries Ltd., rep by its Chairman and Managing Director Singareni Bhavan, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Colliery Manager, RK 58, Singareni colliries company Ltd Srirampur Division, Mancherial District.

¶13

The General manager SCCL Ltd, Srirampur Division N/ancherial District.

¶14

Smt. lvlounika Aleti, Wo Late Ravi Teja RJo Gangapur village, Rebbana Mandal Komram Bheem Asifabad District

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the in-action of the respondents in considering the representations daled 24.12.2O18 filed for stoppage of death benefits of the son of the petitioner and compassionate appointment to the respondent No.4 who is the accused No.'1 for the death of son of the petitioner in Crime No. 21112018 on the file of Rama Krishnapur PS, Mancherial District and trying to the pay the death benefits and providing the employment to the respondent No.4 as arbitrary^and iltegal consequently direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 24.12.2018.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 20'19

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir,lumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court malr L,e pleased to darect the respondents to stop the death benefits and compassionale appointment to the respondent No.4 w rile considering the application c:ated 2t1.12.2018 pending disposal of the abovrr writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Peti :ioner : SRl. GUDI MADHUSUDHA\ REt)DY

¶20

Counsel for the Res rondent Nos.1 to 3 : SRI P SRI HARSHI. FIEDDY, SC FOR SINGARENI C()LLIERIES CO.LTD

¶21

Counsel for the Resrrondent Nos.4 : Ms. K UDAYA SRI

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.1391 of 2019

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in not considering the representation, dateci 24.12.2018 filed for stoppage oF death benefits of the son of the petitioner and compassionate appointment to respondent No.4 who is responsible For the death of the son of the petitioner and who is accused No.1 in Crime No.211 of 2018 on the file of Rama Krishnapur Police Station, Mancherial District and trying to pay the death benefits and providing employment to respondent No.4, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to consider the representation, dated 24.12.2078

¶28

Heard Sri Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited.

¶29

The petitioner is a resident of Tandur Village and is having two male children, namely, Raviteja and Siddartha and that the husband of the petitioner died while working in Singareni Colleries, leaving behind petitioner and two children. The employment was provided to the petitioner's younger son i.e., Raviteja under

¶30

.ts..t \l,l'..o.:-1)r,rl l(,l9

¶31

dependant ertployment^quota as a General 14azdcro^- in Singareni Collieries with^-mployment Ccde No.02924351'.

¶32

The ma^-riage of petitioner's^you noer sorr/ 1a, iteja was performed witlr respondent No.4 who is i:he |esident of Gangapur Village, Rebbarra Mandal and both resided for somr: :im3 with the petitioner and thereafter, respondent No.4 slarted harassing the petitioner's sor. Due to unbearable mental har-assrrrent c:reated by respondent N0.4, the son of the^petitioner committed suir:ide and a Police complai lt was registered against re:;pondent No.4 and others vide Crirre No.21i of 2018 for the oftence und(]r Section 306 r/w 34 IP(1. A suicide note was executec by the^petitioner's son stating that he committed suicide because of hairas;sment of respondent No.1 and her family members. While so, the^petitioner came to know .hat respondent No.4 has mad,-' an appli(:ation For dependant em )loyment and for death benefits of her son. Thereafter, the retitioner made an application to reslcndent Nos.1 to 3 requesting them to stop^payment of death berrel'its and also not to provide the dependant employment to respondent No.4 as she is accuse(l No.1 in the above stated crirl€. ilut, the respondents, igrroring the application filed by the pe:itioner, are trying to provide the dependant employment ard to oay the death benefits of the^p :titioner's son to respondent No.4.

¶33

.IS.J

¶34

¶35

\.1'.\o.l.lrl of l0l9

¶36

When the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner prays the Court to dispose of the writ petition with a Cirection to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representation oF the petitioner, dated 24.L2.2018 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The learned Standing Counsel has expressed no objection For the same.

¶37

In view of the above submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 24.L2.201B and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs

¶38

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶39

SD/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ANEARI ASSISTANT REG#/IRAR //TRUE copy// sEcTtoN dFHCen

¶40

To,

¶41

1 The Chairman and Manaoing Director, M/s Singareni Company colliries Ltd., Singareni Bhavan. Hydera-baO.

¶42

I The Colliery Manager, RK SB, Singareni colliries company Ltd Srirampur Division, Mancherial District.

¶43

3 The Ge-nerar manager sccl Ltd, srirampur Division Mancheriar District. 4 One CC to SRt. GUDt MADHUSUDHATT|nEooY iOir".ate [opUCJ ONE CC tO SRI. P SRI HARSHA REDD', SCrON'S;.,'ONRENI COLLIERIES co.LrD.[oPUC]

¶44

One CC to Ms K UDAYA SRt, Advocate.tOpuOl

o 7 Two CD Copies

SB GJP

{fu/)-x

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 108t2023

ORDER

WP.No.1391 of 2019

ATE O
.i9
I
7aeI
) o
t<br>t1 5tt ts
)o n
r)
\ pr. e,i ft

¶53

DISPOSING Otr THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COI}TS.

¶54

E
-t'44
0

Aleti Susheela v. M/s Singareni Company colliries Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aleti Susheela v. M/s Singareni Company colliries Ltd.

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

A. Ashok and 179 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Shanigararn Shyam Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

K. Ravinder Reddy Vs State of Telangana

Ch. Venkata Sukumari Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Ksheerasagar Ramesh Vs Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank

Jakkula Manohar Vs The State of Telangana