Dismissed

Bodkala Poshamma v. The Chairman and Managing Director

Telangana HC30 Oct 2023WP/30136/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by petitioner on behalf of a minor daughter seeking compassionate appointment. It held she was under 12 when her father died in 2012, disqualifying her from the waiting list, and directed the respondent to pay lump sum compensation instead.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay lump sum compensation; counsel advised to submit documents for the same.

Bodkala Poshamma Vs The Chairman and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^{321e ]}

¶2

HIGH COURT .^{FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} ATHYDERABAD (SPecial Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶3

[/ONDAY -TWO ,THE^{THIRTIETH DAYOF OCTOBER} THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI}

¶6

WRIT PETI^{TIONNO:30136oF 2023}

¶7

Between:

¶8

'1 . Bodkala Poshamma, W/o^{Late Bodkala Chandraiah Aoed about 50 Years} -vityata, Kalu"va Rampur ltr,andal,

¶9

occuoation nor."^{wiil'"Rl'o'ii.N",i"i-oo,}

¶10

, [3[[:Tnft:31il#:liiltlli"^{uoo*,,,^"hand} 'Ma^r v'r'' Kaliva^{aiahAsed about 23.Years} Rampur Mandal' occuoalion un"*prolZi^{fu? n'"ttrt"i-oo'} Karimnagar^{District Telangana} ...PETITIONERS

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

The Chairman^{andtvlanagingDirector' Ttle Sinoareni CollieriesCompany} Limited^{(A cou"rn"'fiii"'B#;;;;iSinga'e;iBhavan' Lakidikapool} Hvderabad^{- Telangana} and^{(PA& w) (FAC)' singareni collieries company}

¶14

, IiH,,3J"3""?s,.5[',t3,3J: l[#nl,,lli""l^?n;i;1;"'ii"]h;g-uo;rn oi'striit a +f;58313l.r1^{Manaser, singareni} .collieries^{io.moanv LimitedRamagundam} Division^{_ rrr natna'luriiiYi',iri,'rrrJJr p;;noor'VillisePeddapallv District} 505 212 T.S ...RESPONOENTS

¶15

Petition^{under Article226 of lhe Constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances^{statedin the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be} pleased to issue^{a writ' or direction more particularlyone in the nature of writ of} mandamus^{declaring the action of the Respondents2 and 3 in not considering the} petitionerrepresentationdatedo3to2l2o22andlStost2022forappointmentofthe petitioner No.2^{under any suitabe post in respondent organization as illegal'} improper,^{arbitrary. unconstitutionaland violative of principlesof naturalJustice} andalsoViolativeofArticle300-AoftheConstitutionoflndia.consequentlydirect ,n" n".6onO"nts^{2 and 3 to consider petitionerNo 2 underany suitable postin} respondent^{organization under compassionate groundsforthwith}

¶16

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit frled in support of^{the petrtron,the High Court may be pleased to} direct. the respondents 2 and 3^{to consrder representationof the petitioner dated} O3tO2t2O22 and 1810512022^addressed to^{respondents 2nd and 3rd for} appointment of the^{petitionerrn any suitable post in the respondents organlzation} under compassionate^{grounds forthwith pending disposal of the above writ} petition

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SATYANARAYANA^DHARMAPURI

¶20

Counsel forthe Respondents:^{SRI P. SRI HARSHA REDDY,}

¶21

SC FOR SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITED

¶22

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶23

i I

¶24

THE HON'BLE^{SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI} WRIT PETITION^{No.3O136of 2023}

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Writ Petition^{is filed seeking awrit ofmandamus} declaring the action^{of respondents No.2 and 3 in not considering} the representations^{of the petitionerdated 03'O2'2022and} 18.05.2022 for^{appointmentof petitionerNo'2 in any suitable post} AS 1n respondent^organlzatlon illegal and arbitrary^and consequently to^{direct the respondentsNo 2 and3 to consider her} representatlons^{d,ated. C.3.02.2022and 18.A5.2022for appointment} of the petitioner^{No.2 on compassionate groundsand to pass such} other order or^orders

¶27

Leamed counsel for^{the petitioners submitted that petitioner} No.2 was a minor^{at the time of her father'sdeath and after} attaining majority,^{the petitioners have submittedthe application} for compassionate^{appointmentbut the samehas been rejected by} the respondents^{and advisedthe petitioner to seek lump sum} payment in lieu of^{dependant employment'}

¶28

Mr.P.Sri Harsha^{Reddy, learned Standing Counselfor} Singareni Coliieries^{Company Limited pointed out that petitioner}

¶29

¶30

......'n =:re .- i#

¶31

No.2 would have to be more than 12 r'ears o[ age at the time of death of her father to bc in the u,aiting list for compassionate appointment. Since petitioner No.2 u'as not even of the minimum age, the petitioners cannot uou' seek appointment of petitioner No.2 on compassionate grounds. Learned Standing Counsel submits that vide letter dated 01.08.2023, the petrtioners have been advised to submit the required documerLts for processing of lurnp sum amount of Rs. 12. 5 iakhs

¶32

Learned counsel for the pcritioners however submrtted that the petitioners are requesting to appoint petitioner No.2 on compassionate ground instead ol payme nt of lump sum amount

¶33

Having regard to thc above submissions, this Court hnds that at the time of death of the petitioner's father in the year 2O\2 i.e., 24.03.2012, petitioner No.2 would have been less than 12 years of age and therefore petitioner No.2 cor.rld not be kept in the waiting list for compassionate appointmenr arrd the petitioners cannot now seek appointment of petitioner No.2 on compassionate grounds. In view of the same, the respondents are directed to pay iurnp sum compensation as per the extant Rules.

¶34

¶35

Accorclingly, the^{Writ Petitionis} closed. There shall be^no

¶36

order as to costs

¶37

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand

¶38

closed.

¶39

//rRUE coPY/' ^".i3{F,-?ttt?fiil

¶40

'EcrloJdFFlcER

¶41

'o',^on "^qq ro :s'| ^stTlsiff AIAtsi'#F8$'.Yft A$t"-"'"3%3IyFi.'

¶42

'^{33"*?:'",,t1L?LBroou.r}

¶43

Two^{CD Copies}

¶44

BM GJP

tr^{^-

HIGH COURT

DATED:3011012023

ORDER

WP.No.30136^{of 2023}

¶50

g S T416: o
.l'
:l Z
0E il0\l l$a i.t:)
",,).
<lt
'i" '-'

¶51

CLOSING^{THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUTCOSTS}

¶52

s 't^,-3

Bodkala Poshamma v. The Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bodkala Poshamma v. The Chairman and Managing Director

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

Kurisenga Adithya Vs The State of Telangana

V. Venkateshwarlu Vs The Commissioner of Endowments

Talluri Thiruna Hari Babu Vs The State of Telengana

M.Chandriah Vs The State of Telangana

B.Hephzibah Vs The State of Telangana

T.Narsimulu Vs State of Telangana