Disposed

R P Subash Kumar (Died) v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Jul 2025WP/19415/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, legal heirs of deceased/retired VST Industries employees, sought a direction for consideration of their compassionate appointment requests. The court noted the company's counter affidavit admitted exceptional appointments from 2016 subject to vacancy, held petitioners entitled to relief, and directed consideration within four weeks.

What the court decided

AI extract

R P Subash Kumar (Died) Vs the State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132527

¶2

oF TELANGANA rN rHE^H|GH "ou*If8IrtffoBt#E (SPecial Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶3

WEDNESDAY, ,'.-^{THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{MRS JUSTICESUREPALLI NANDA}

¶6

WRIT PETITIO^{N NO:1 9415 0F2022}

¶7

Between:

¶8

I . R,P. Subash^{Kumar(Died),S/o. R. S. Paul (DebeasedAs per LRs)}

¶9

2 R UnemPioYee, S.Suiav Kumar,^{Rlo.9-2261S/o Late} 1 R.P.SubhashEmPloYees Kumar, ColonY,YaPral. Age³⁵ Years^{J J Nagar'} .^Occ' Secunderabad.

¶10

T Chennaiah,^{S/o T. Bagaiah (Deceased As per LRs)}

¶11

4 Toooaram^{Shiva Kuamr,S/o Late T' ChennaiahAqe 40 years Occ'} U nemptoyee,^{Rt o 2-2-1)l N\l"A.frirn"rgri, Vidyanagarl Hyderabad- 44}

¶12

S.^{Ra1 tvtallaiah, S/o.S Ballaiah(DeceasedAs per LRs)}

¶13

S. Laxminarayana,^{S/o LateS'RajalvlallaiahASe- jfvears' Occ Unemployee'} Rlo.1-7-102219/8,Hannagar,Krsihnanagar'zami'sthanpur'Musheerabad'

¶14

Hyderabad^{- 20}

¶15

R. P.^{lssac, S/o R. A Paul(Deceased As per LRs)}

¶16

'l8il.?9:r[rtilS:S[T3,3,f^{i*,?,1*,X';:$iqd'":0bJd':30oquemProYee'}

¶17

P.Yadagiri,^{S/o P Mallaiah (DeceasedAs per LRs)}

¶18

32 Years'^occ

¶19

1 0 P Ma^{n ika ntaYqq} ""., -l -7-6:^j4 lfi 11.:fiil*xJaB%1', *.{133i,',0ss-"u UnemPloYee,^R/o

¶20

1 1 . G. Niranjan^{Raiu,S/o G AnanthaRaju (Deceased As per LRs)}

¶21

12 Sai Rai, S/o^{Late G NiranjanRaju' Age- 35} Y91lt: 9*^{Uemolovee' R/o 5/3RT'} Flat No.101,^{salnatnLaxilittiiala't' Vi;ayai'agarColony'Besid'eHDFC Bank'} HYderabad -^057'

¶22

S. Mallesh,^{S/o. S Ramulu (Deceased As perLRs)'}

¶23

'14. shaila sri. calaga, (unmarried)'^D/o'Late 9'0".lX3l5?:"fti,i"Ji'ri;"t"i, '- ii;;;;r";.; ,^{-ilro.t'tztrtt0,} vsr colonv'^N: tr/edchal^{-iMal f aj g iri District'}

¶24

M. A.^{Rahaman, S/o. Md' Majeer (DeceasedAs per LRs)}

¶25

l6.Mohd^{Ateequr Rahman,S/o Late.MohaTT-"-dib-d'l Rahman Age 34 years'} Occ. Unemployee,^{nlo i'-g--Zs3h'Viduanag'r'Hyderabad- 044}

.....PETITIONERS

:}|.

AND

The State of Telangana.^{Rep by its Speclal Chief Secretary.toGovt;'} !3po" EmploymentTrainingand,Factories(Labour-ll)DepartmentSecretarlal' Hyderabad

¶30

2.M/s.VSTlndustriesLimited,Rep.byitstvlanagingDirector,RegisteredOffice at Azamabad, HYderabad.

¶31

3.ThelndustrialTribunal-ll,TanguturiAnajaiahKarmikaSamkshemaBhavan, - niC Cross Road, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Presiding Officer'

¶32

. .....RESPONDENTS

¶33

petition Under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith,the High court may be} pleased to pass an order or^{ordersone in the natureof Writ of Mandamus} declaring the action of the second respondent^{in not considering Petitioners} request as arbitrarY, illegal and contrary^{to law, consequentlydirectthe2nd} respondent herein^{consider their request to appoint on compassionates grounds}

¶34

t.A.NO:1 OF 2022

¶35

Petition Under section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleasedto} direct the 2ndrespondent^{consider the petitioners requestto appointthem on} compassionate^{groundsimmediately,pending disposal of the main writ petition'}

¶36

l.A.NO:2 OF 2022

¶37

Petition Under section^{1 51 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the HighCourt maybe pleasedto} amend the cause^{titleas shownin the affidavit para No.5, otherwise the petitioner} will put irreparable^{loss and injury pending disposal of the main writ petition}

¶38

Counsel for the^{Petitioners: SRICHALLARI NAGESWARARAO}

¶39

Counsel for the^{Respondent Nos.1& 3 : GP FORLABOUR}

¶40

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.2 : SMT K.MANASA}

¶41

The Court made^{the followingORDER}

¶42

HON'BLE MRS. ]USTICE^{SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶43

WRIT PETITI ON No.194^{15of 202?.}

¶44

ORDER:

¶45

Heard Sri Challari^Nageswara Rao, learned counsel appearing on^{behalf of the} petitioners and Smt. K.Manasa,^{learned counsel appearing} on behalf of the respondent^No.2.

¶46

The Detitio ners a ooroach ed this Court bv f^ilino the resent w rit Detiti^{n seekin o the Draver as under:}

¶47

".....to pass an order or orders one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus^{declaringthe action of} the second respondent in^{notconsidering} Petitioners request as^{arbitrary, illegal and} contrary to law,^{consequentlydirect the2nd} respondent herein consider their^requestto appoint on compassionates^{groundsand pass'....."}

¶48

The limited relief sought by^{the petitioners in the} present writ petition is a direction to the^{respondents to} consider the^grievance of^{the petitioners, who are} employees of^{respondentNo.2, for consideratlon of the} cases of children of^deceased or^{retired employees for} compassionate appointment by the^{respondentNo.2} management.

¶49

¶50

SN,J W.P.No.19415 2022

¶51

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a detailed representation dated 15.10.2012 was addressed to the respondents herein and the same had even been acknowledged by the respondents herein, however, no action had been initiated in this regard as on date.

¶53

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit, particularly in paragraphs 7 and B, submits that respondent No.2 company had discontinued the practice of providing employment on compassionate grounds to the children of deceased or retired employees, and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim such relief as a matter of right. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶54

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the limited relief, which the petitioners seek is a direction to the respondents to consider petitioners. representation, dated 15.10.2012 for consideration of the cases oF children of deceased or retired employees of respondent No.2 company for compassionate appointment by the respondents herein.

¶55

7.P ERUSED THE REC RD:

¶56

¶57

SN,J W.P.No.19415 2022

¶58

¶59

A) co n ra vit bee o half the resDo ndent No.2 and IN^DA icula r, Da raqraoh Nos. andSa extract ed hereunder:

¶60

"7. In reply to Para No. 5, it^{is. submitted} that the contentions^{of the Petitioners that the} Respondent Company is^{appointing personson} compassionate^{grounds at the time of filing the} present Writ Petition are utterly^{false, baselessand} put to strict proof of the same.^{It is submitted that} the Respondent^{Company in discussion with the} elected Union frames^{the policies to be followedin} the appointment of^{workman'slegal heirs on} compassionate^{groundsand is done at the sole} discretion of the^{management and that too in rare} cases and only if^{the legal heir qualifies the requisite} educational and^{physicalfitness criteria necessary} for emptoyment in the^{Respondent Company.Only} legal heir of a deceased^{workman can seck} appointment in the^{Respondent Company on} compassionate^{groundssubject to vacancy or opt to} claim lump sum^{amount and the Respondent} Company is^{not under any obligationto provide} employment to^{the legal heirs of the deceased} workma n. It^isfurther submi d that the ResDondent ComDany had di ntinued the ra o ate a n to I hei ft r red rkme e 200 tself andt^rom 2OO5 to 20L6 no ADDointments werem ade. Hence, the

¶61

¶62

SN,J W.P.No.19415 2022

¶63

Petitioners cannot claim it as vested riqht and seek emolov ent i the Resoon ent

¶64

Com anv ou tinq ce in oast instan ces of m lo ent ssl te un

¶65

Fu rther. from the vear 2016 onwa rds, a nate otn nti rovl d n eli R ele lrs f ork en wh die

¶66

harness th t too su biect to a vaca ncv. B. In reply to^para Nos. 6 and 7, it is reiterated that the Respondent Company is under no obligation to provide employment on compassionate grounds to the petitioners herein. here th eti n s n ot cl th me ma of ri h rn the th Res ndent Comoanv had Drovided such em lovment as an exceDtion on lnc ertain

¶67

ca satt he discretion of the manaqe ent wh ere ln the leoal heir had oualified the em Dlovment criteri e of the ResDo nd e nt Com nv. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the practice of providing employment on compassionate grounds by the Respondent Company stands discontinued and hence, the Petitioners cannot seek the said relief..,

¶68

D SI n AND CL N

¶69

A bare perusal of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2, particularly in paragraphs 7 and B, indicates that respondent No.2

¶70

¶71

SN,I W.P.No.19415 2022

¶72

discontinued the^practice of compassionate^{appointments to} the legal heirs of deceased or^{retired workers as early as} 2005, and no such appointments were^{made between 2005} and 2016. However, DaraoraohNos.T&8 of the cou nter affidavit indica s that^resDond nt^No.2 m an r m assionate tn ments b wav of exceDtion in certain cases , at the dis^{retion of} +he ma m n + whe f h le al heir rrral iha eliqibilitv criteria orescribed bv the^{comDanvfrom the} vear 2O 1 6 onwards, that too subiect^{to avacancv.}

¶73

The object of compassionate appointment^{is a} social security measure to support the^{familyof the} deceased government servant, who dies in^harness. The aim and object of the^policy for compassionate appointment is to^provide financial support to^the family of the deceased employee, who^leftthe dependents in distress and^penury. The^{core aim of} the object of^providing compassionate appointment^is to relieve the family from financial sufferings^being faced for the sudden demise of the Bread Winner^of the family. The sufferings being faced by^the dependents of the deceased^employee for^sudden demise of the Bread Winner^{could be solvedfor some}

¶74

¶75

sN,l W.P.No.19415 2022

¶76

extent by providing compassionate appointment to one of the dependents of the deceased employee to look after the family. The said relief should not be denied on the ground that the same is not feasible without assigning any reasons defeating the very object of the compassionate appointment.

¶77

In view of the clear admission at paragraph Nos.7 and 8 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent company (referred to and extracted above) that employment was provided as an exception in certain cases at the discretion of the management, where the legal heirs met the employment criteria of the respondent company from the year 2O16 onwards subject to vacancy, this Court opines that the 2nd respondent duly taking into consideration the very object of compassionate appointment as explained at para No.9 of the present judgment, is bound to consider the request of the petitioners to appoant the petitioners on compassionate grounds in the Znd respondent company without any delay and hence, this Court opines that the petitioners are entiiled for grant of the said relief in the present Writ Petition.

¶78

¶79

SN,J W.P.No.19415 2022

¶80

¶81

TAKING INTo coNs^DERATON:

¶82

a) The aforesaid^{facts and circumstances of the} case,

¶83

b) The submissions^{made by the learnedcounsel} appearing on behalf^{of the petitionersand the learned} counsel appearing^{on behalf of the respondent No.2,}

¶84

c) The averments made in the^{counter affidavit} filed on behalf of the respondent^{No.2, in particular,} paragraph Nos.7 and 8^(referred to^{and extracted} above),

¶85

d) The fact that the^{representation ofthe} petitioners, dated 15.1O.2012 had^{been acknowledged} by the respondents,^{howeverno action had been} initiated in the said regard^{as put-forth by the} petitioners as on date in their representation,^dated 1s.10.2012.

¶86

The writ petition is disposed of^{with a direction} to the respondents to consider^{the grievance of the} petitioner, as put forth vide^petitioners' representation dated 15.10.2012 seeking

¶87

¶88

SN,J W.P.No.19415 2022

¶89

)
i
l

¶90

consideration of the request of the petitioners to appoint the petitioners on compassionate grounds in the 2nd respondent company without any delay, duly taking into consideration the very object of compassionate appointment, which is mainly intended to provide support to the family that loses an earning member, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and duly communicate the decision on the said representation, dated 15.10.2012 to the petitioner herein. However, there shafl be no order as to costs.

¶91

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand

¶92

closed.

¶93

SD/.S. KARJUNA RAO
SI NT REGISTRAR
:
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER

¶94

To 1. The Special Chief Secretary to Government, Labo u mployment Training and, Factories^{(Labour-ll) Department, Secretariat} ,^{State Of Telanganaat} Hyderabad.

¶95

The Managing Director, M/s. VST^{lndustries Limited, Registered Officeat} Azamabad, Hyderabad.

¶96

The Presiding'Officer, lndustrial^{Tribunal -ll, TanguturiAnajaiah Karmika} Samkshema Bhavan, RTC Cross^{Road,Hyderabad.}

¶97

Two CCs to GP FOR LABOUR, High^{Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶98

o'ne cc to sRl CHALLARI NAGESWARA^RAO,Advocate [OPUC]

¶99

One CC to SItilT K.IVANASA, Advocate^(OPUC)

¶100

Two CD Copies

SA BS 1/

C.C. TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:2310712025

/-j
q- );
(.9 rs6
<,) al
,-)
j).

ORDER

WP.No.19415 of 2022

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

/a /z< V /?^z/13

R P Subash Kumar (Died) v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

R P Subash Kumar (Died) v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Machha Ramulu Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Golla Mallaiah Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

C. Mohan Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Smt. a. Padmavathi Vs The State of Telangana

K. Papaiah, And 16 Others Vs State of Telangana, And 34 Others

B.Dharmendar Vs The State of Telangana