Disposed

P. Padmalatha, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Aug 2023WP/6153/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought employment on compassionate grounds and benefits after her husband, a teacher, went missing. While finding compassionate appointment infeasible, the Court directed the District Collector to consider her representation and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the District Collector to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

P. Padmalatha, Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.6153 oF 2018

¶7

Between:

¶8

P. Padmalatha, W/o. Late P, Venkateswarlu, A Occ Unemployee, R/o. H.No.20-9-10, Khila Fort Warangal,^ged Warangal Urban District^{about 47 years,}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Represented by its princioal Secretarv. School Education Department, Secretariat Buildingi, Hyderabah - SOO O2Z.'

¶12

2 The Director of School Education, Opp Telephone Bhavan, Beside A.G. Office, Saifabad, Hyderabad - 5O0022.

¶13

3 The District Collector, Warangal, Warangal Urban District.

¶14

4 The District Educational Officer, Warangal, Warangal Urban District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of lhe 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 of direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of l/andamus and to issue a direction, order or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the lmpugned Proceedings in. Rc.No.278lSer.lll-112016, dated 04.01.2017 ol the 2nd respondenf wherein rejecting the case of the petitioner for provjding employment under compassionate grounds and also not releasing any of the benefits for which the petitioner is entitled as her husband was completed 22 years of service in the department is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and also in

¶17

violation of Art.^'1 4, 1 trnd^{21 0l the constitutionof lndi;r arrcl r(l(lla'ethe same as} bad in law and set.^{si,je the same and consequentlydire(l t're respondents to} provide employn.telt o the petitloner under^{compassiorrate,3-rlundsin any of the} suitable^post altd^,:l: I^{to releasethe bcnefits for whic I ther pr, tttioner ls entitled} and with all consectre^{ntialbeneflts.}

¶18

lA NO: 1OF 2018

¶19

Petition Llndor lection¹ 51^{CPC praying thatin tl'e circ rntstznces statedin} the affidavit filed rn^{rupport of the petrtion,the High )otrrt trray be pleasedto} direct the 3'd respon^lent to^{consider the case of the petitirl ltrr fcr any suitable} employment under c^{)rlpassionategroundsin any of the :;- table post'while} disposing of the^{-e1 r€} senlatron^{dateci 28.06.2017 wrich is perrding till date} pending disposzrl o'tl e above writ^petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petit otrer:^{SRIC. RAJA SEKHAR REDIIY}

¶21

Counsel for the^{ResJondents:GP FOR SCHOOLEDUC:ATIO</sup> GP FOR SERVICES.I}

¶22

The Court made the¹ )llowing:^ORDER

¶23

¶24

¶25

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICENAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO}

¶26

WRIT PETI^{TION N0.6153 of 2018}

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

' Heard Sri C.^{Raja Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel} for the^{petitioner and learned Government Pleaderfor School} trducation.

¶29

This writ petition^{is filed under Article226 of tbe} Constitution^{of Indiaseeking the lollowingrelief:}

¶30

"....to issue an^{appropriateWit, order or direction' more} particul.arly. one in^{the nature of Wnt of Mandamusto} declare the^{impugned proceedingsin Rc'No'278/ Ser'lIL} 1/2016, dt.04.O1^{2017 of the )tr<t Tsspsnflsntwherein} rejecting the case^{ofthe petitioner for prouiding} emplogment^{undercompassionategrounds and alsonot} releasing^{ang of the beneftts} for^{whichthe petitioneris} entitled as^{her husband- completed 22 years of seruice} in the deparhnent,^{is bad, illegal, and set asidethe} same and^{con.sequenlLg, directthe respondentsto} prouide emplot1ment^{to thepetitionerunder} compassionate^{grounds in ang of the suitable post and} also to^{release the benefts for u-thichthe petitioner is} entitled. antt^{tuith all consequential benefrts and Pass} such other^{order or orders...."}

¶31

¶32

¶33

RRN,J 'A/P No.6153 of 2018 3. ,carned Counsel for lhe petitionr:r sr l;rntttcd that the pctitio re,r,s late husband was appoilrte(l rts a Pi111-6irn" I,structcr. n Electrical House Wiring arrd Drc,_ rt.stic Electrical r.ide p:occ'r C.ngs dt.10.02.1986 at Gor, )rnrnerr,- High school Fort, 1,i,2212 tlJal District and hc w-orl< cd co rti;-ruouslv for about^').2 .,r a rs in the satne position. IIc Iurr ltcr. conte nded that th,: rc,s Dondents submittecl proposrrls ftr. rcrJularization of the emplc yt:es who were working in tlrc abo.,c said school on a contl.iir t basis, but thc Governmer t rlic rot re6Srlarize thcir ser.r,icr: l .

¶34

3(1 ) I e,uned Counsei for the p,:ti:i:rne r further submitted 1h; t the petitioner,s late husband r.vlr I c rvorking in the abovt: s:L rol, on 30.06.2OOg, left his lrous<: .or attending his duties, bu unfortunateJ.y either he atte ndec .he school or came back to ris 1.ror"" ,r, ,n" evenlng anc thert:;tftr:r though they u,e1s rje uched for him, but in vrrin. l-ater, they complained 1r: _he police of police Stati,;n. IvIrJis Colony, War^angal, on l5 lO.2OOg and the same rvas rc:gisl:rred as FIR No.246 of 2COl i. After searching by the p riir:s ,1l11p211tment,

¶35

3 RRN,J WP No.6153^{of 2018}

¶36

¶37

they issued a^{letter stating missing since 30'06'2008 and}

¶38

after making^{efforts, this case was referred as "un-detectable"} on 31.08.2OO9

¶39

3(2) Learned^{Counsel for thepetitionerfurther} submitted that^{so far the v,.hereaboutsof the petitioner,s} husbanda.renotknown,andevenherdaughterwentinto depression on^{accountof her father's missing and on that} ground, her daughter^{expired oo l3'O2'2O10'In such a} situation, the^{respondents issuedproceedingsin} Rc.No.466lVLr-ll2006^{dt'O1 08'2009 byregularizingthe} services of^{part-timevocationalinstructors working under} the control of^{the School EducationDepartment' but since} the petitioner's^husband '*'as^{missing his services were not} regularized.^{While thingsstood so, the petitioner submitted} an application^{betbre the Headmasterof the Schoolon} 23.o|,2oogandthesamewasforWardedbytheHeadmaster to the 4th respondent,^{but no action was taken' As such' the} petitioner approactied^{the Tribunalby filing O'A' No'8469 of} 2010 and the^{Tribunal was pleased to pass final orders on}

¶40

¶41

RRN,J '.\r P N o.615l of 2018 02.12 2Ct 1i) by dir<:cting the rcsponrlent t r ,:xarnine the representa ic,ri 6,. 01.o2.2O10 of the per,iti,)l(.f zlnd pass favourab.r, rrdr:rs as per the rules.

¶42

3i3) ,e ar-ned Counsel for the petirioller further subrnittecl lrat the l)etitioner after receivinsl r re said orders, submitrei , n application before the a:tl rcs ror rlen t along with cour r ).-ders and the s€une was Iorr.r-arr r.cr bv thc 3.r re spond en t o the 4h respondent on O5.Oil.il(.r 1 The 4rn respondent lent a proposal vidc p,.-,r:er,dings tn Rc.No l'+7:). c7 ,/2ors dt.26.01 .2016 to rhe ., ,i r cspondent to take apol rprlj2fg action and consider thc r.,,c1uest of the petitioner ro providing employment, but ti.: s;arnc) was rejected b.y 1f e 2,,d respondent on 04.Ol.2OlZ:,.r the ground that after e>la n:nation of the proposal, it ir; obsr,..ve<l lhat the candidate. lzLr,c I). Venkateshu,arlu is engq3ecl € s it part_time vocation ins:rr ctor only, which is illegat and :rrt r rrarv.

¶43

3(4) Lc:u n,:d Counsel for the p,etiti<rrrt:r lurther submitted thal t.ad the husband of the petition,:i been alive, his services u,<: rld har.e been reglrlarized, but i;e t Lre p:rthetic

¶44

5 RRN,J wP No.6153 0f 2018

¶45

t t

¶46

condition and missing of the^{petiLioner's husband,his} services were not regularized. Finally, the petitioner made an application before the District Collector, Warangal/3.a respondent, on 28.06.2017 requesting him to consider her case and appoint her in any suitable post on compassionate grounds, but no action has been taken. Accordingly, prayed to a-llow the Writ Petition.

¶47

4 Though there is no feasibility of a compassionate appointment, taking into consideration oi the pathetic condition of the petitioner, respondent No.3 is directed to consider the representation dt. 28/06l20 17 of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period ol eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶48

5 Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.3 to consider the representation dt. 28 I 06 / 20 17 of the petitioner and^pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of eigLit (08) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No order as to costs

¶49

¶50

R ti r't ,l

¶51

!t r lio.,- 151 of 2 018

¶52

.r lir;ceilani:ous petitior-rs. if E I l1-'. t){'nciing ir-r this

¶53

i.lrrr t petitior , shall stzrnd closecl.

¶54

SD/. I]. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISJTA!T REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

I;E(:TION OFFICER

1 The Drstrict C rlL;clor, Warangal, warangal Urban Distrir:1.

¶59

2 One CC to SF i O. RAJA SEKHAR REDDY, Advor:ate [C^p JC]

¶60

3 Two CC.s tc l[) for Services-|, High Court for the Ste te of Telangana at Hyderabad [O ./1-]

¶61

4 Two CCs to C P for School Education, High Cour for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad OUTI

¶62

5 Two CD Cocie s

GJPN/P^$f

hIIGH COURT

DATI:D:0310812023

,,. ( -i;- j i 4;.'
,/;,
l{' :,'
i
1l
AIJE zfiil
\t),
'. .-
-.-- I
ORDER

¶67

WP.Nc.li153 of 2018

¶68

DISPOSING OF THE WIlIT PETITION

¶69

WlTl{rCLJT COSTS

¶70

( v,,.<br>

P. Padmalatha, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Padmalatha, 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

R.Chandrasekhar Vs the Ap State Road Transport Corporation

Shaik Mohammed Ali , Mohd. Mahmadali and 2 Others Vs the Depot Manager and Another

A. Krishna Veni Vs The State of Telangna

K. Bhavani Vs M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.

Shaik Bahseer Vs The State of Telangana

B. Venkaiah Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation