Allowed

Ms. Bathula Mounika, Nalgonda Dist v. Md, Tspdcl., Mint Compound, Hyd and 2 Others

Telangana HC19 Sept 2023WP/46785/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment for a married daughter of a deceased employee. The Court set aside the Postal Order precedent excluding married daughters and directed the employer to reconsider the case based on financial and educational eligibility within two months.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the memo dated 03.06.2016; directed respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment within two months.

Ms. Bathula Mounika, Nalgonda Dist Vs Md… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEI,4BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 46785 OF 2016

¶8

Between:

¶9

Ms. Bathula Mounika, D/o. Late Smt. T. Vijaya Aged 23 years, Occ Unemployed Rr/o. H.No.1-4-24919718, Balaji Nagar Suryapel, Nalgonda llistrict

¶10

...PETrroNER

¶11

AND1. Telangana Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director Corporate Office: 6-1-50, Mint Compound Hyderabad - 500 063.

¶12

The Superintending Engineer, Telangana Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Operation Circle, Nalgonda District.

¶13

The Divisional Engineer (Elec.), Telangana Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Operation Divisional, Huzurnagar

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Directions, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in rejecting the case of the petitioner for providing employment under compassionate grounds on the ground of married daughter not entitled for compassionate appointment as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, discriminatory, in violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds by setting aside the impugned proceedings Nrlemo No.CG[r,,l(HRD)/Gf\il(lRlglandAdm) /AS(Per&Ser)/PO-H1237-H112016, dt. 3.6.2016 and direct the respondents to consider the request and provide employment on compassionate grounds. l.A.^{NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP.} NO: 57613 OF 2016)

¶16

Petitlon 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 direct to consider the case for providing compassionate appointment, otherwise the petitioner would serious hardship and irreparable loss. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.K. JAYAPRAKASH RAO

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R. VINOD REDDY (SC FOR TSTRANSCO) The Court made the followinq: ORDER

¶18

{

¶19

--;--------7

¶20

Ttr{E HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENN'AS RAO

¶21

WF.IT PETITION No.46785 ot'2076

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Wl'it Petition is filed seeking the fc,ilowing relief:-

¶24

"to issue an appropiate Wit,^,)rder or Direction;, particularlg one in the nature of Writ of Manc amus, declaing the action of tl,,e responde nts in rejecting the case of tl,.e petitionet for prouiding emplogment under compass onate grounds on the ground of married daughter not entitled rtr, compass, orLate appointment as illegal. unjust,. contrary to lana, arbitrary, discriminatory, rn uiolation o.f principles of natural^jusrice ctnd uiolatiue o.f Articles 14, 16 and 2 1 of the Constitut;.on of India consequently dtrect tl,e respondents to consider the case of the petitionet for appointment on compassionale grounds bA setting aside the intpugrrcd proceedir gs Memo No CGM(HRD)/ GM(IR.L17l and A,Lm)/ AS(Per and Ser)/ PO-H/ 2 3t'H1/2O16, dt.3.6.2O16 and direct the respondetts to consider the request o.n,C prouide employment on cornpa.;siontte grounds, attd pass...."

¶25

Heard Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learn:cl counsel for the petitioner, ald Sri R.Vinod .Reddy, learned Standing Cou esel for respondents.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner subm.tsi that the petitioner's firther Sri Saidulu, who ',vorkecl . n the respondents-()ompany died while he we-s in -.er.zice in the year 2OOt,. Thereafter, petitioner's rnothe r, namely,

¶27

¶28

¶29

Smt.T.Vijaya was appointeti in the respondentsCompany on 11.10.20i0 as an Office Sub-Ordinate on compassionate grounds. Thereafter, she was promoted as Record Assistant on 18.07.2014. Due to ill health, petitioner's mother died on 01.09.2015 while in service The petitioner is the only daughter and her marriage was performed by her mother. Learned counscl for the petitioner submits that petitioner's husband is also an unemployee and after the death of petitioner's mother, petitioner submitted a representation to the Chief Genera-l Manager(HRD), Corporate Office on O3.03.2016 on requesting to provide employment to her compassionate grounds, as she is having requisite qualifications and also stated that she is not having movable or immovable properties. Respondent No.1 without properly considering the representations submitted by the petitioner rejected the claim of the petitioner through impugned Memo dated 03.06.2016 without giving any reasons but simply stating that as per the orders issued in T.O.O. No.213 dated 3O.12.2OOO read with Government Memo. No.a06l7O/ A.1/ Adrnn.lI/2OO4, dated 20.03.2004, the

¶30

¶31

petitioner is not eligible for providing enrplo5, n-ten t under compassiona te grounds.

¶32

Learnec counsel for the petitioner subln ts that as per the settl:d proposition of law, married d,a.u;3hter is also entitled to clairn compassionate aLppoinr-rn':nt but respondent llo.1 without properly considerirLg the claim of the petitirner, passed the impugn,:d nremo dated 03.06.2016.

¶33

Per cc ntra, learned Standing Cou.nsel for respondents strbmits that as on the dat,: of tleath of the petitioner's reother, the petitioner is, read,z rnarried and living wit h her husband. Therefore, the petitroner is not a depenc ent. Respondents-Company aft el death of the petitionr r's father provided employm,:r t to the petitioner's mother on compassio aate grounds. Respondent llo.1 after considering the repres;ent:rtion of the petitioner rightly passed the impugr: ed nremo dated 03.06.2O 16 rr^jecting the claim of the petrtionr:r.

¶34

Having r:onsidered the rival submissior.s made by the respectivt: parties and aJter perr.rsal of the nraterial

¶35

¶36

available on record, which clearly reveals that the petitioner''s father, namely, Sri Saidulu worked in the respondents-Company and while he was in service, he died in the year 20O8. Thereafter, petitioner's mother, namely, Smt.T.Vijaya was appointed as an Office SubOrdinate on 11.10.2010 on compassionate grounds. During her service, due to ill-health, she died on 0i.09.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application on 03.03.20 16 seeking compassionate appointment, wherein, the petitioner specifically stated that she is the only daughter and not having any source of livelihood and her husband is also an unemployee. The petitioner and her husband were living with petitioner's mother and she is entitled to compassionate appointment under the Scheme.

¶37

It is very much relevant to mention here that, respondent No. 1 rejected the representation of the petitioner and passed the impugned memo dated 03.06.2016 without giving any reason and respondent No.1 relying upon the order issued in T.O.O. No.213 dated 3l.I2.2OOO read w'ith Government lvlemo

¶38

¶39

No.4O6l 1O^rA. 1/Adm.lI/2OO4, dated 20.03 20O4,^passed the rejection order rvhich is clear violation of 1>rinciples of natural^j ustice.

¶40

In Wrjt Petition No.18013 of 2O2'-, a lezrned Single Judge of tbis Court taking into consideration the orders passed in \r'.P.No.16242 of 2013, dated 20.06.:2013 and W.P.No.415'5 of 2021, dated lA.Oa.2O2l observing that the compa:;sionate appointment should br: ;3iven to the married da rghter if she is otherwise eligibl: in respect of qualificatio^-r and financial position arLd disJrosed of the said writ F etition directing the responderLt:; therein to reconsider the case of the petitioner :or c,rrnpassionate appointmerrt if she is otherwise eligible 1rl respect of educationa qualification, financial position, r:tc.

¶41

I I

¶42

Takinlg into consideration the fa<:ts and circumstances of the case and also the or<ler prassed by this Court in W.P.No.18013 of 2023, rlaterl 13 07.2023, the impugr:ed memo passed by respcnderrt No.1 dated 03.06.2016 is set aside and the resl)ondents are directed to reconsider the case of the or:titioner for compassior.ate appointment if she is otherrvise eligible

¶43

¶44

1n respect of educational qualification, financial position etc', within a period of two (o2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶45

10' Accordingly, the writ petition is clisposed of. No costs.

¶46

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shatt

¶47

stand closed.

¶48

sD/- T. TtRUMALApEVT ASSISTANT REGIS,TRAR //TRUE COPY// a/ SECTION OFFICER

¶49

To,

¶50

Telangana Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director Corporate Office: 6-1-50, Mint Compound Hyderabad - 500 063.

¶51