Disposed

Lakki Sarojini, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Aug 2023WP/7937/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging non-consideration of a representation for compassionate appointment due to the deceased husband's alleged wrongful removal. The Court directed the Regional Manager to decide the survivor's pending revision petition within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No. 3 to dispose of the petitioners husband s revision filed on 06.08.2018 against orders dated 23.07.2018 within 4 weeks. No costs.

Lakki Sarojini, Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132s71

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY^{SECOND DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE^{JUWADISRIDEVI}

¶6

wRtT PETITION NO: 7937^{OF 2019}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Lakki Sarojini, Wio late L.Ch.lvlallaiah,^{OccHousewife, R/o H-No3-1-'1 43,} Samithi Singaiam Village, Manuguru^{1vlandal,Bhadradri Kothagudemdistrlct}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, rep.,^{by its PrincipalSecretary, Transport} Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶12

2 The Telangana State Transport^{Corporation Ltd, Rep-, by its. Chairman and} tt4anaging Director, Bus Bhavan,^{[\4usheereabad, Hyderabad}

¶13

3 The Regional Manager, T.S.R.T.C.,^{Khammam, KhammamDistrict}

¶14

4 The Divisional Manager, T.S.R.T.C.,^{Kothagudem' Khammam District}

¶15

5 The Depot Manager, T.S.R.T.C.,^{Manuguru, Bhadradri Kothagudem District}

¶16

...RESPONOENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of^{the constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filed therewith,the High court may be} pleased to issue a writ order or order^{more particularlyin the natureof writ of} lvlandamus to declare action of^{the respondents in not considering the petitioners} claim for compassionate^{appointmentof her son on the representation} dt.22.1O.2018 submitted before^{the 3rd respondent on the pretextthat the} deceased was a removed employee,^{despitethe fact that his appeal is still} pending before the appellate authority though^{his removal was unfair and abuse} and misuse of^powers is illegal,^{arbitrary,and violationof Article 14 of the} constitution of lndia and consequently^{direct the respondent to appoint the} petitioners son Lakki Kishore to any suitable^{post on compassionate groundson} the ground that the appeal^{filed by the deceased employee abatedwith all} consequential benefits by setting^{asidethe impugned removalof the deceased} em ployee vide orders^{No. PA/19(4)/201 8-DVM-KTTMdt.23-O7-2O 1 8'}

¶18

IA NO: 10F 2019

¶19

petition under Seclion .1S_1^{CpC prayingthat in} the circumsta,tces stated rn the affidavit fited in support oi tne peiiro,n.'in",i,gn Corrt may be pteased to drrect the respondents to ,co.n:iqer tne ciaim oi't"ne petitioner for conpassionate irl,%liTiJ'" ::"ffi ;il":1 :, ll,,: :'*"futJ 1l."in s or tn ",.u p.J".,lla't'#' o t

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI pULLA RAO yELLANKI

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: Gp FOR TRANSPORT

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 to 5: SRI GADDAM SRINIVAS,

¶23

SC FOR TSRTC

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

I I

¶26

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

¶27

WRIT PETITI ON No .7937 ot 2Ol9

¶28

ORD R

¶29

The grievance of the^petitioner is^{non-considerationof} representation, dated 22.70.20L8 for^{compassionate appointment} of her son due to death of^{her husband.}

¶30

2, Heard Sri Pulla Rao Yellanki,^{learned counsel for the} petitioner and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel^for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation^{Limited.Perusedthe} record.

¶31

3, The petitioner's husband by name^{Lakki Mallaiahused to} work as a driver under the control of^{respondentNo.5/Depot} Manager. On the charge of submitting forged^{loan application} before TSRTC Employees Thrift and Credit^{CooperativeSociety} Limited, he was removed from service by^{order, dated 23.03.2018} by respondent No.5. Against the said^{orders, he preferredappeal} before respondent No.4/Divisional Manager,^{which was rejected by} order, dated 23.O7.2018. Thereafter, the^{deceased-employee} preferred revision before respondent No.3,/Regional Manager^on 06.08.2018 and the same is^{pending. Duringthe pendencyof the} revision, the husband of the^petitioner had expired on^10.09.2018.

¶32

¶33

ls..l \ .P.\ o.r9lr of l{119

¶34

When the matter is taken up, the learned courrsel for the petitioner has submitted that Respondent-Corporation has used the complaint as a tool for removing the deceased -ernployee on the basis of Enquiry Report. dated 08.02.2018. Howeverr, he prays to dispose of the writ petition directing respondent No.:r to dispose of the revision filed by the husband of the petitioner on 06.08.2018 expeditiously. The learned Standing Crtunsel has expressed no objection for the same.

¶35

In view of the above submissions, the Writ^petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to dispose of the Revision filed by the petitioner's husband on 06.08.2018 against the orders of respondent No.4, dated 23.07.2018, within a pe-iod of (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶36

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stancl closed

¶37

¶38

SD/. P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTAIU(REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// cE SECTION OFFICER

¶39

To,

¶40

The Principal Secretary, Transport Department, The State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶41

The Chairman and Managing Director, The Telangana State Transport Corporation Ltd, Bus Bhavan, lvlusheereabad, Hyderabad

¶42

The Regional Manager, T.S.R.T.C., Khammam, Khammam Disr:rict

¶43

The Divisional Manager, T S R.T.C., Kothagudem, Khammam t)istrict

¶44

The Dofot Mgnager, T.S.R.T C., N/anuguru, Bhadradri Kothagudem District

¶45

One CC to SRI PULLA RAO YELLANKI, Advocate [OPUC]

¶46

One CC to SRI GADDAM SRINIVAS, SC FOR TSRTC IOPUCI

¶47

Two CCs to GP FOR TRANSPORT, High Court for the State of Telangana. lourl 9. Two CD Copies GJP BN ".qv.

HIGH COURT

DATED:2210812023

ORDER

WP.No.7937^{of 2019}

z. ..,.iI\l(.)- a.
,',.i (,\
r 1E StP 2m i.j)
) ;: ,:i
. ,.',,(t .,.,:' lit"
'.- t
J 1,.,.1;1.,,C.':l -"
,-?

¶53

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS 4

Lakki Sarojini, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakki Sarojini, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aleti Susheela Vs M/s Singareni Company colliries Ltd.

A. Ashok and 179 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Shanigararn Shyam Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Ch. Venkata Sukumari Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Ksheerasagar Ramesh Vs Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank

Jakkula Manohar Vs The State of Telangana