Dismissed

M.D.Razia Begum, Nakirekal Vandm., Nalgonda District v. the M.D., Apsrtc., Musheerabad, Hyderabad and Another

Telangana HC26 Jul 2023WP/23096/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment to the petitioner's son. The court found the son was a minor at the time of the husband's death and the petition's daughter failed to appear for selection, rendering the claim invalid.

What did the court decide?

None; the request for compassionate appointment to the petitioner's son was rejected as he was a minor and ineligible.

M.D.Razia Begum, Nakirekal Vandm… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 23096 OF 2006

¶7

Between:

¶8

M.D.Razia Begum, Wo. Late Hafeejuddin, Age 44 years, Occ:Housewife, Ri/o.H.No.15-137. Nakirekal village and Mandal, Nalgonda O,.,ltll=r,,Or

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The Managing Director, APSRTC., RTC 'X' Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC., Hyderabad City Region, J.B.S. Secunderabad.

¶11

...RESPONDENTS

¶12

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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs order or direction declaring the proceedings No.L4l785(210)/2005-HCR dated 20.10.2005 issued by the 2nd respondent in rejecting the request of the petitioner to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner's son Md.Naveejuddin as arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents herein to consider the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment to the petitioner's son as directed by this Hon'ble court in WP.No.186'1 5 of 2005 dated 23.8.2005.

¶13

MP. NO: 29417 OF 2006

¶14

Petition under Section I 51 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 respondents herein to consider the request of the^petitioner for compasionate appointment to the^petitioner's son namely Md.Naveejuddin pending disposal of the writ petition as otherwise the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and severe hardship.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T.VENKAT REDDY, ADVOCATE Counsel for the Respondents: SRI GADDAM SRINIVAS, SC FOR TSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO.23O96 OF 2006

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

This Writ Petition is filed under Articl e 226 of Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner's son, Md.Naveejuddin by declaring the proceedings No.La/785(21O)/2005-HCR dated 20.10.2005 issued by the 2nd respondent as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to consider the request ol the petitioner for compassionate appointment to the petitioner's son as directed by this Hon ble court in WP.No l86 15 of 2005 dated 23.08.2005.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner's husband, late Hafeezuddin has worked as Driver in the respondent Corporation at Suryapeta Depot and while he was in service, he died dire to cardiac stroke on 1I.10.2000. After the demise of the petitioner,s husband, they made an application before the respondent authorities seeking compassionate appointment for her

¶20

¶21

daughter, but the respondents have not considered the representation and against the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.186 15 of 2005 and the sarne was disposed of on 23.O8.2005 with the following direction:

¶22

"Directing the respondent_Corporation to consid"er the representation of the petitioner to prouid_e emplogment to her son in the ptace of her daughter and. pass appropiate ord.ers expeditiousty, preferablg u_ttthin a period. of sk uteeks from the d.ate of reeipt of a copg of this order,,.

¶23

Basing on the above said orders, the respondent_ Corporation issued a call letrer vide Lr.No_W 4 / 6g4(I) / OS_ HCR, dt. 14.02.2005, to the daughter of the petitioner for selection for appointment as conductor in Hyderabad City region on compassionate grounds on 02.03.2005. By that time, the daughter of the petitioner was married and again the petitioner made another application on 23.O2.20O5 to the respondent authorities stating that her daughter was married and her son was eligible to the employment on compassionate grounds and requested the respondent authorities to provide employment to her son in place of her daughter. Against the said representation, the respondent

¶24

authorities have passed an order on 20.1O.20O5 rejecting her application as follows:

¶25

"as per existing ntles in fore in tle Corporation thr: dependants of tle deeased emplogee lws to submit their opplication toithin three years from the date of death of emplogee to tlrc concerned Unit Offtcer i.e., D.M/ Suryapet. Tle dependant applicant has also completed 18 gears of age as on the date of submission of application. The Head of tLe family of tle deeased haue to chose to whose application can be submitted os dependant .fro proubion of employment. Accordingly, Smt.Razia Begam, W/ o. Lote Hafeeatddin submitted her daughter's application as dependont to her familg. Sle uos olso called fo,^{attendingselection} on O2.O3.2O05 dulg uacancies. But sle failed to s-ubmit her uillingness not attended to selections.

¶26

The date of birth of her son is 12.06.1987 and date of death of her husband is 11.1O.2OOO. As on the date of death her son is onlg aged 13 years uho is not qualifted for appointment in APSRTC as he utas a minor.

¶27

I{ence, the application dt.23.02.2OO5 submitted bg her prouision of employment under Bread winner ScLeme to her son in plae of her daughter is rejected as the same is not admissible as per rules in force".

¶28

As seen from the above rejection order, this Court finds that as per the call letter, the daughter ol the petitioner has to attend the selection which was conducted

¶29

¶30

on 02.03.2005, but on the same day, neither she attended the selection, nor requested for employment to her brother.

¶31

l.earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's representation for change of employment from her daughter to her son was made on 23.O2.2OO5, thereafter only the selections took place on O2.03.2O05.

¶32

But the fact remains is that, on O2.O3.2O05, the petitioner's daughter has not attended the selection nor made any application seeking relevant employment to her brother and as per rejection letter, the death of the petitioner's husband was on 11.10.2000 and by that time, the age of the petitioner's son was 13 ycars, and for employment it is not qualified for appointment in ApSRTC as he was minor.

¶33

For the above said reasons and as per the rejection Ietter dated 2O.lO .2OO5, the petitioner,s son has not attained the age of 18 years at that time, as such there are no grounds to seek compassionate appointment to the petitioner's son, accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶34

¶35

Pending miscelianeous applications, if any, shall

¶36

stand closed

¶37

SD/. G. SIREESHA ASSISTANTTREGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// SECNK OFFICER To, roPucl 21 3ffi^{33 3 3Ei ?t?RtX"FgHXAlffi5'Tr3'"t'l?} 3. Two^{CD CoPies} BSR GJP / 6'

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2610712023

ORDER

<. ilts- n r4, 6
e
oo 2 s [ll$ 2ffi1 a
* )!
CF'. 'a
, ;U,

¶43

WP.No.23096 of 2006

¶44

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION,

¶45

WITHOUT COSTS

M.D.Razia Begum, Nakirekal Vandm., Nalgonda District v. the M.D., Apsrtc., Musheerabad, Hyderabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.D.Razia Begum, Nakirekal Vandm., Nalgonda District v. the M.D., Apsrtc., Musheerabad, Hyderabad and Another

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

A.P.S.R.T.C and Another Vs Nemali Veera Swamy

Nemali Veera Swamy, Vs A.P.S.R.T.C.

Y Achamma and 3 Others Vs MD Ayaz and 2 Others

Ms. N. Umalakshmi, B.Sc., B.Ed., Vs Government of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary

Meena Gangaram Vs Ravi Kumar and Another

Bhagyamma, Vs M.v.Ravindranath