Dismissed

Ch. Padma v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Nov 2023WP/31964/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition and petition under Section 151 CPC, the High Court of Telangana dismissed the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment. The court held the petition was not maintainable and lacked merit because the person sought for appointment was not the legal heir of the deceased employee.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending are closed.

Ch. Padma 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

SATURDAY,^{THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICEP. MADHAVI DEVI}

¶7

WRIT PET]TION^{NO: 31964oF 2023}

¶8

Between:--"--Ch. Padma, D/o Late Mutyalu, W/o Mahendel,-age {0 .Y.e{!'. pcc' Uild"y;;,^{nloloranimpatn6mVillageand Mandal,Ransa Re$LDi?tri-ct'} ...PETITIONER

¶9

AND I The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue} Deoartment. Hvderabad.

¶10

AND

¶11

2 Th6 District Collector,^{Ranga Reddy District.} 3 iil; il;;;;;^{Diuisionuiofri""r,I brihimpatnam Division, at rurkavamjal'} Ranga ReddY^District.

¶12

+. in'e linsiUii,^{lbrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddv''"t''l].hrrroNDENTS}

¶13

Petition under^{Article226 of lhe constitutionof lndiapraying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiled therewith,the High Court may be} pleasedtograntanappropriateWrit,order.ordirectionmoreparticularlyonein ihe nature Jf^{w1.it of mandamusto declare the inaction of the respondentNos'2} io + in considering^{the representations of the petitioner daled04-11-2O23,} 07-oB-2023&05-08-2023forgrantingcompassionateappointmenttothefamily members of the^{deceasedSri -MutyaliNarsimha as illegal, arbitrary, violation of} ;;i;;'pi";^{of natural justiceand vioiative of Article1 4' 16' 21 -A of the constitution} of lndia and^{consequently direct the respondents to provide a suitable} epioy"nt^{to the familymembersof sri Late Mutyala Narsimhawho died while} in servlce.

¶14

IA NO :1 OF 2O23

¶15

Petition under Secti on^'1 51 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed^{in sup} port of the p"iition, ifre^{High Court.maybe pleased to} direct the resPondents^to 'consider tire representations of the petitioner dated and 05-08-2023^{and pass appropriate orders in} o4-1 1 -2023,^{07 -oB-2023} ino disoosal of the^writ Petition. accordance with^law, Pend Counsel for^{the Petitioner} , illr. S. MADHAVI^{REPRESENTINGFoR} SRI A. RAMA^KRISHNA

¶16

Counsel for^{the Respondents:GP FOR SERVICESll} The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶17

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

¶18

IVRIT PETITION No.31964 of 2o23

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This writ^{petition has been frled seekinga direction to the} respondents^{No.2 to 4 to consider the representationof the} petitioner for^{providing compassionateappointment to one of her} cousins on^{account of the death of the petitioner's fatherwho was} an employee^{with the respondents.}

¶21

The person^{to whom compassionateappointmentis sought} is not the^{legal heir of the deceasedemployee and therefore, the} request of^{the petitioner is not maintainableand cannot be} considered.^{In view of the same,there is no merit in the writ} petition.

¶22

Accordingly,^{the writ petition is dismissed. Thereshall be} no order^{as to costs.}

¶23

Miscellaneous^{applications,ifany pending, sha1l stand}

¶24

closed.

¶25

SD/- MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// t / sEcTtoN urrrcen

¶26

To, 1. One CC to SRI A. RAM KRISHNA, Advocate IOPUCI 2. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES ll, High Court forthe State of Telangana. IOUTI 3. Two CD Copies

BN GJP bh

/t v

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 811112023

ORDER

WP.No.31964 of²⁰²³

1 S fA T€ o
(
"<
9
iau 20r-3 o
3 )--q [B ut .',
n
t
* D ?
::

¶34

DISMISSING^{THE WRIT PETITION}

¶35

WITHOUT COSTS

¶36

w 3

Ch. Padma v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch. Padma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. U.G.Plast Vs D.Madhavi

T Venkat Narsaiah Vs Mr Navin Mittal, 1AS

B Devasena Reddy. Vs Mr Navin Mittal, IAS1

Vatsala Rathod Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Abdul Quddus Hussaini Vs The State of Telangana

Indrakanti Kamalakar Vs Union Bank of India (Formerly Andhra Bank)