Dismissed

pasupunoori Pooja v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Dec 2023WP/33455/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking compassionate dependent employment after the deaths of her mother-in-law and husband. The matter was disposed of by consent without expressing merits, directing the respondent to decide the pending representation within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with consent, directing Respondent No. 2 to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders within six weeks.

pasupunoori Pooja Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH^{DAY OF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK}

¶6

WRIT PETITION N^{O: 33455 OF 2023}

¶7

Between

¶8

Pasuounoori Pooia, Wo.^{lateVamshi Kumar, Age.29 years,OccHousehold'} alo^-rfric-azz. Fl;t^{No.206, KPHB 3rd Phase, Kukatpally, Hvderabad}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of^{Telangana,Rep. by its Princip-al-Secretary,} -Municipal nJrninldiillion and^{urb"an Devetdpmeht Dept, Dr. B R AmbedkarTelangana} Secretariat,^Hyderabad-

¶12

2 Greater Hyderabad^{lvlunicipalCorporation,Rep by its Commissioner'Tank} Bund Road, Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226^{of the constitutionof lndia prayingthat rn the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiled therewith, the High court may be} pleaSedtoiSsueaWrit,orderordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthenatUreof writ of Mandamus declaring^{the actionof the 2nd respondentin not providing} dependent entployment^{to the petitioneron compassionate groundsin placeof} her mother-in-law^{who died while in serviceon 2510712021by consideringher} representation daled^{15t0412023,as illegal,arbitrary,u nconstrtutionaland} violatron of Pnnciples^{of natural justlce and consequently direct the respondents} to^provide the^{dependent employmentto the petitioneron compassionate} grounds, who is the daughter-in-law^{of the deceased employee}

¶15

IA NO 1 0F 2023

¶16

Petitton under Section^{151CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated} rn the affidavit filedⁱⁿ support^{of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to} direct the^{respondents to expeditiouslyact uponthe represenlation of the}

¶17

Petitioner daled 1510412023 for^providing the dependent^employmenton compassionate grounds.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH.RAVI KUMAR

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR^{MCPLADMN URBANDEV}

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M.DHANANJAY^{REODY, SC FOR GHMC}

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA I{ARTHIK

¶23

WRIT PETITTO N No.33455 of2ol23

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Writ Petition is hled seeking the^{following relief:}

¶26

".. .to issue a Writ, Order or direction^more particularlg one in the nature of Wil of Mandamus declanng the action of tfle 2"d^{respondent in not} prouiding dependent emplogment to the^petitioner on compossionate^{groundsin place of ler mother-in-} law, ulro died while in^{seruiceon 25/07/2021 bA} considering her representation,^{doted I 5/ 04/ 2023} as illegal, arbitrary, unconstttutional^{and uiolation} of PnncipLes of natural^{justice and consequentlg} direct the respondents to^{prouide the dependent} employment to the^{petitioneron compassionate} grounds, who is the daughter-in-lau^ofthe deceased emplogee and^pass..."

¶27

This Writ Petition ts being disposed^{of with the} consent of both the^parties.

¶28

Hearci Sri Ch.Ravi Kumar,^{learned counsel appearing} on behalf o[ the^{petitioner,learned GovernmentPleaderfor} Municipal Administration and Urban^Development Department appearing on behalf of^{respondent No.1 and} Sri M. Dl-ranar-rjav Reddy,^{learned Standing Counsel for}

¶29

GHMC appearing on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the material available on record.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner got married to one Vamshi Kumar on 07.Ol.2O2l as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Smt. Pasupunoori Sujatha, who is the mother-in-law of the petitioner, has died on 25.O7.2021, r.r,hile she was working as an Office Subordinate in respondent No.2-Corporation. Subsequently, the husband of the petitioner died on 13.O2.2023. It is further submitted that since the petitioner is the only surviving tegal heir of her husband and her mother-in-law, she is eligible for dependent employment on compassionatc grounds. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a reprcsenration, dated 15.O4.2023 to respondent No.2 with a request to provide employment on compassionate grounds. But the said representation is pending before respondenr No.2. Therefore, learned counsel prayed this Court to direct respondent No.2 to consider the representation madc b5, the petitioner, dated 15.O4.2023 and pass appropriare orders.

¶31

¶32

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submitted that respondent No.2 will consider the representation made by the petitioner, dated 15.O4.2023 and pass appropriate orders.

¶33

Ih view of the submissions made by the respective parties, this Writ Petirion is disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits, directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation made by the petitioner, dated 15.04.2023 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of srx (O6) weeks from the date of receipt of a cop1, of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

Miscellaneous perirrons pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶35

SD/.V.HARI PRASAD ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY'

&-:-- -

SECTION OFFICER

To, 1. The Principal^{SecretaryMunrr-tpal Administrationand UrbanDeve-lopment} ' oeit, oi- bnA,"o"dkar Telingana Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana

¶40

The Commissioner^{GreaterH yderabadlVlunicipalCorporation' Tank Bund} Road, Hyderabad

¶41

One^{CC to SRI CH RAVIKUI'{AR.Advocate [OPUC]}

¶42

One CC to^{SRIt,,'l DHANANJAYREDDY' SC FOR GHMC [OPUC]}

¶43

5.TwoCCsIoGPFORMCPLADI\4NURBANDEV,Highcourtforthestateof Telangana at^Hyderabad [OUT]

¶44

Two CD CoPies

BSR 5

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1811212023

ORDER

WP.No.33455 of 2023

1tr e STAI€
(
l
[ 3 JAN ?024 ,bio
a-
*
I DEsprJc<br>

¶52

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

¶53

WITHOUT COSTS

¶54

o@$

¶55

&.,
a3
a1

pasupunoori Pooja v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

pasupunoori Pooja 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

Indira Karise Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Shahnaz Bhanu, Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd Makdum Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited

Venkatesh Kantekar Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Siva Kumar Ganiwada Vs The Union of India

Dr.R.Rama Murthy Vs The State of Telangana