Disposed

G. Manjula v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Nov 2023WP/28423/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a mandate for compassionate appointment. The court directed respondents to consider the petitioner's pending representation within two months and reported back.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider the pending application for compassionate appointment within two months and intimate the status to the petitioner.

G. Manjula Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^321e ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEIVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 28423 OF 2023

¶8

Betwee n:

¶9

G. tvlanjula, Dlo T. Eshwaramma (Late), aged about 41 years, Occ. Unemployeed, R/o H.No. 4-4311 , High School Road, Ashwapuram, Bhadradri, Kothagudem, Telangana.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary (Energy) Secretariat, Hyderabad. Telangana.

¶13

2 Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Viduth saudha, Kairthabad, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Director HR, TS GENCO Vidyuth Soudha Somajiguda Khairatabad Hyderabad.

¶15

The Kakatiya Thermal Power Project, Rep by its Chief Engineer O & M, Palavancha, District Telangana

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Arlicle 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents against the application of Smt. G Manjula for appointment under compassionate grounds as bad, illegal, unco nstitutional and direct the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for appointment under compassionate scheme-

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

¶20

p6titlon 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 dispose of the application date 29.O5.2023, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N. JOY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SERVICES lV

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: Ms. UMA DEVI, SC FOR TS GENCO

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

I I

¶26

THE HON'BLE^{SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI}

¶27

WRIT PETITION^{N0.28423of 2023}

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Writ^{Petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus} declaringtheinactionoftherespondentsontheapplicationof Smt.G.Manjula^{forappointment undercompassionate} grounds as bad,^{illegal,unconstitutional and consequently to} direct thc^{responclenttoconsider the applicationofthe} petitioner for^{appointmentunder compassionate schemealrd} to pass such^{otherorder or orders'}

¶30

Learned^{counsel for the petitionersuLrmitted that} petitioner's mother^{was workingas a Sweeper in the second} respondent^{Corporationand has expired on l9'O4'2O08 while} in service.^{The petitioner being the dependent of her mother} has applied^{for compassionateappointmentvide application} dated 13.O4.2009.^{It issubmitted that thereafter' the} c petitioner has^{contacted the respondent a nurnber of times /} and also^{made representationslatest being dated 29'O5'2023'}

¶31

but no reply was given b,r- tl-re respondents and hence this writ petition is filed.

¶32

Learned Government pleader lor Services_lV who takes notice on behalf of tl're respondents is also heard.

¶33

Having regard to the fact that the representation of the petitioner dated 29-os.2023 is pending for consideration, this court deems it lit ancl proper to direct the respondents to consider the same and p:rss appropriate orders thereon within a period of two (2) rnonths lrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order and intimate the same to the petitioner.

¶34

Accordingly, this u,rit petrtion is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

Miscellaleous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition , shall stand closed.

¶36

SD/.N.CHANDRA SEKHAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

To,

,TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

1 T,fe Principal Secretary (Energy), The State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad. Telangana.

¶42

2 ].he..lV9qqg!ng^{Director, TelanganaState power Generation Corporation} limit_ed,^{Vid uth sa udha, Kairthabad, Hyderabad.}

¶43

3 The Director HR, TS GENCO Vidyuth Soudha Somajiguda Khairatabad Hyderabad.

¶44

4 The Chief Engineer O & Ir/, The Kakatiya Thermal power project, Palavancha. District Telanqana

¶45

One CC^{to SRI N. JOY, Ad-vocateTOPUC-l-..^-} 6. o;; cc^{to H,tt uMA DEVI, sc Foh TS GENCoIoPUCI} 7. Two ccs^{ro Gp rontEHVictslv,nO[ corrt f6r the stateof relansana} tourl

¶46

Two CD^CoPies BN^

PSKL/

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:0811112023

ORDER

qiL Si,4 7'c !r:'
( '.a
c i:ii; (! 1 '...: I
3[f,
...

,. a!)
r)s.l i:i\T ,:;i:

¶53

WP.No.28423 ot 2023

¶54

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶55

:.--<-

G. Manjula v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Manjula 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G Bhakshi Naik Vs The State of Telangana

G Bhakshi Naik Vs Principal Secretary

Smt. Battari Shyamala Vs The State of Telangana

Ankam Lingaiah Vs Gajula Mallu

Palla Nishanth Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Girija Putta Vs The State of Telangana