Allowed

B Kalamma v. Tsrtc,Jnt.M.D,Hyd,and 2

Telangana HC5 Sept 2023WP/7663/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging compassionate appointment rejection for height deficiency. High Court set aside the impugned order rejecting the petitioner based on pre-2000 circular and granted liberty to file a fresh representation for consideration under the 2000 relaxation circular.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; liberty granted to submit fresh representation within two weeks for consideration under the circular dated 30.11.2000 within two months.

B Kalamma Vs Tsrtc,Jnt.M.D,Hyd,and 2 — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 7663 OF 201G

¶8

Between:

¶9

B.Kalamma, -W/o. Late B. Yadaiah, aged about 35 years, Rl/o. H.No.1-23,

¶10

Arjunwada, 1'' Block, Devarakonda, Nalgonda District

¶11

...PETITIONERY PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Joint Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad

¶14

The Regional Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Nalgonda Region, Nalgonda.

¶15

The Depot Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation,

¶16

Devarakonda Depot'

¶17

...RES'.NDENTS/ RES''NDENTS

¶18

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 or direction, particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, by setting aside the proceedings No.GC2l140(NLG-AGEy2010PO,l dated 06-10-201 5 and declare the action of the respondents in not considering Petitioner's case for compassionate appointment on the ground that the petitioner is falling short of one centimeter even after giving 2 cms relaxation in the height as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory, in violation of Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and also contrary to the Circular in PD68/2000 dated 30-11-2000 and consequently the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner herein to the post of Conductor on compassionate grounds in the interest of^justice and fair play.

¶19

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 9768 OF 2016)

¶20

Petition 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 the respondents to^provide employment to the^petitioner to the^{postof Conductor} on compassionate grounds with reference to the Circular^{in PD68/2000dated} 30-1 1-2000

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents : SRI GADDAM SRINIVAS^(SC FOR^TSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

I I

¶23

THE E ON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVT\S RAO

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.7663 of 2O16

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This writ petition is filed for the following rt:liel

¶27

" ..to issue an appropiate urit or ,Tirection, parti:ularlg one in the nature of wnt of ntandamus, by settirtg aside the proceedings No.CC2/ :40(NLGAGE)/202O-PO.I dated 06.10.201:; anct. de<:Iare the actio,t of the respondents in not cotlsidetir, g petitioner case for compassionate appointme'nt ort the ground that the petitioner is falling short of otte centimeter euen after giuing 2 cms. relaxatiort in the height as illegar,, unjust, arbitrary, disciminatory, tn uiolation of Articl,zs 14 and 21 of the Constitutionof lttdia and also contntry to the Circular in P-D6B/.2(tOO dated 30.1 1.2OOO and consequentlg the petitioner pr,zgs that this .lon'ble Court maA be pleased tc diru:ct the respo tclents to prouide emplogmen! to tfu: p'=titioner hereir to the post of Conductor on comoa:;sionate groun7s."

¶28

Heard learned counsel for tl-re pr:titioner and

¶29

Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel fcr respondents.

¶30

karned counsel lor the petitioner sullnlitsr that the respondents-C,)rporation issued a circular dated 30. 1 1.20OO relaxing the reight in order to consider thr: cleLim of the dependents of the employees, who died i:r ha:-ness., so as to

¶31

¶32

consider them for appointment though they are below 153 centimeters, for the post of conductor under the bread winner scheme and without taking into consideration of the said circular, rejected the claim of the petitioner despite the fact that the petitioner is also entitled for the benefit under the said circular dated 3O.11.2000.

¶33

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the respondents have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner through impugned order dated 06.10.2015.

¶34

Having considered the rival submissions made and also perusal of the material available on record which clearly reveals that the respondents-Corporation has not considered the claim of the petitioner in terms of the circular dated 30.1 1.2OOO, and rejected the claim of the petitioner basing on the previous circular instructions dated 05.05.2000, although as on the date of rejection, the respondents-Corporation issued another circular dated 3O.11.2000, wherein, the respondents-Corporation relaxed the condition.

¶35

¶36

In vieu rrf the same, the impugrre<l order passed by the respondents- Jorporation is set aside. Horvever -he petitioner is granted libe rty to submit a fresh representat-ion seeking appointment cn compassionate grounds prlrsuant tc the circular dated 30.11.2000, within a period of two rveeks l'r-onr the date of receipt of a c rp-y of this order and on such represerrtation being made, the re;pondents Corporation is dir,:cted to^(lonsider the same duly t *ing into consideration ol the cir,:ular dated 30. 1 1.2OOO ar d pass appropriate orders in accc,r<lance with law within a perioc of tu,o months thereafter

¶37

7 . Accordinlil5', this Writ Petition is disposcd of. No costs.

¶38

Pending miscellaneous applications if an1', s,hall stand closed.

¶39

¶40

SD/. P, Ch. NAGAE}HUSHAMBA ASSIS ANT REGISTRAR i/rRUE coPY/t ()s SEtlTl,CN OFFICER

¶41

To 1. The Joint Manag ing Director. Bus Bhavan, Musheerzrbad, S;t€te ()f Telangana, Hyderabad

¶42

The Regional Mirnager, Telangana State Road Trans;port Corporation, Nalgonda Region, Nalgonda .

¶43

The Depot Manager, Telangana State Road Transpot Corproratic,n, Devarakonda Depot.

¶44

One CC to Sri P.^y'enkateswar Rao, Advocate [OPUCI

¶45

One CC to Sri Girddam Srinivas, SC for TSRTC [OPL,C]

¶46

Two CD Copies

Kj GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:05/09/201 3

ORDER

WP.No.7663 of 20 l6

--::a_-- <br>,z
.4/^k
,
f JT
U) s
{)
u, :l,J
F s- T
o). I ,3q
*7/
c :) r''
I

¶54

DtsPoslNG oF THE WP- --r.
wrTHourcosTs. ( ?'
_ _--
nAk
ro >ry

B Kalamma v. Tsrtc,Jnt.M.D,Hyd,and 2

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Kalamma v. Tsrtc,Jnt.M.D,Hyd,and 2

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

N Narsimhulu, Hyderabad Vs Depot Manager, Tsrtc, Hyderabad and Another

Kuppala Balakrishna, Vs The Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board

Alur Veeresh Babu Vs Union of India Rep., by its Secretary

Banoth Naveen and 3 Ors. Vs Prl. Secy., Home Dept. and 3 Ors.

K.Vittal, Adilabad Dist. Vs R. Laxman, I.R.S., Hyd and Another

The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Vs The State of Telangana