N.Priyanka Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited (Spdcl)

¶1

[^321e 1

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI^DEVI

¶6

NO: 14t149 OF 201 El

¶7

N.Priyanka, D/o Late N.Nagaiah, aged 23^years, Occ ;^{Unemployee, Fl/o Etigadda} Kistapur Village Thoguta, Siddipet District.

¶8

AND

¶9

The Southem Power Distribution Company of Telangana^{Limited (SPDCL)'} rep by its Chairman and Managing Director, Mint Compound,^{Hyderabad-500} 063.

¶10

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary,^{Energy Department,} Secretariat, Hyderabad.500022.

¶11

The Superintending Engineer, Southem Power Distribution Company^of Telangana Ltd. Sidd ipet.

¶12

RESPONDENTS

¶13

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 a Writ, order or direction more^particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the^{respondents in rejectingthe petitioners} case for compassionate appointment vide impugned^{MemoNo.CGM(HRD)} /GM(Per.)/AS(P and S)/PO-H1177-H112O13,^{dated 16-04-2018,without givingage} relaxation on par with others as highly illegal, arbitrary^{and discrimination and} consequentially this Honorable Court^{maypleasedto direct the respondents} herein to consider the^petitioners case for^{compassionateappointment in any} suitable^post by^giving necessary relaxation^{of age on parwith others, by set aside} the impugned Memo dated 16-04-2018.

¶14

201

¶15

Petitiorr 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 herein to consider the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment i1 any suitable post suitable post by giving necessary relaxation of age on par with others following the Division Bench order in WP.No.2618412011, d1.20-9-2011 p,ending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M.R.TAGORE

¶17

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.l & 3 : SRt N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TELANGANA STATE SOUTHERN POWER DTSTR]BUTION COMPANY

¶18

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2 : AGP FOR ENERGY

¶19

The Court madle the following ORDER

¶20

IN TIIE HIGH COURT FOR TTM STATE^{OF TBLANGAI\IAAT} TTYDERABAD

¶21

TTM HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE T. MADHAVI^DEVI

¶22

WRIT NO.14449 oF 2019

DATED: 03.02.2026

Between:

N. Priyanka

... Petitioner

AND

The Southem Power Distribution^{Companyof Telangana Limited} (SPDCL).and2 others

¶29

... Respondents

¶30

ORDER

¶31

This Writ Petition is filed^{challengingthe memo}

¶32

No.CGM(HRD) /GM(Per.yAs(P&s)/Po-H^{1 77 -Hl12013,dated}

¶33

16.04.2018, whereby the case of the^{petitioner for compassionate}

¶34

appointment was rejected^{on the ground that she had not completed16} years of age as on the date of the^{death of her father-}

¶35

F{eard leamed counsel for the^{petitioner,Sri N. Sreedhar} Reddy, learned Standing Counsel^{for TelanganaState Southem Power} Distribution Company appearing^{for respondents No.l & 3 and} leamed Government Pleader for^{Energy appearing for respondent} No.2 and perused the entire^{material on record.}

¶36

TMDJ wp-14449 2019

¶37

2

¶38

Brief facts leading to the filing of the^present Writ Petition are that the petitioner's father was^{workingas Line Inspectorwith the} respondr:nt No.l-organization and he died on 01.08.2012^{and as on th{l} said datt:, the petitioner was aged 15 years, 1l months^{and I} I^days, falling short of the prescribed age of 16^years by^{19 days.} [t^is submitte,J that on completion of^{16 years} of^{age,the petitioner madr:} an application requesting for consideration of her case^for compassionate appointment and, thereafter, on attaining the^age of majority i.e., l8 years, she made another representation. However,^thr: application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment^\r'as rejected solely on the ground that she haA not completed^{16 years} of age as on the date of death of the employee, as per Memo^Ncl. DP/DM-ll-Gl/983 dated 21.02.1991, and therefore, she^{was held} ineligible for compassionate appointment..Challenging the same,^the present Writ Petition has been f,rled.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Governm€nt is vested with the power to relax the requirement relatinlr to completion o1' [6 years of age and that such power has been exercised in several similarly placed cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to G.O.Ms.No.l dated 02.01.2025, wherein the

¶40

TMDJ wp-14449 2019

¶41

3

¶42

case of one Mr. Sardar^Vikram Singh^{was considered and the shortfall} of one month and two days in^{attaining 16 yearsof age was condoned} and the said person was^{given appointmenton cotnpassionate} grounds; G.O.Ms.No.32 dated 16.02.2015,^{wherein the case of one} A. Laxminarayana Sio Late^{Muthanna,was consideredfor} compassionate appointment and the^{requirementof age of 16 years} rvas relaxed though the said person^{was only12 years of age as on the} clare of death of the employee;^{G.O.Ms.No.40 dated08.06.2015,} rvherein the case of one Kum.^{Ayesha Fathima D/o Late Syed} Abdullah (PC-999) was considered^{by condoning a shortfall of six} rnonths and four days; and^{G.O.Ms.No.96dated 03.07.2015,} pertaining to Syed Mudossir Zeshan^{S/o Late Sri Syed Mahmood,} wherein similar relaxation^{was granted.Learned counsel alsoplaced} reliance on the^{judgment of the DivisionBench of this Court in} W.P.No.26184 of 2011 dated^{20.09.2011, wherein it was held that the} Government cannot^{extend the benefit of relaxation to one set of} applicants and deny the^{same to others who are similarly situatedand} the appeal preferred by the Department^{therein was dismissed. He also} placed reliance upon the^judgment of^{the DivisionBench of this Court} in w.P.No.l424 of 2Al4 dated^{31.01 .2014, confirming the said} ,-

¶43

TMDJ wp 14449 2019

¶44

4

¶45

principlt:. Learned^{counsel for the petitioner is thereforeseeking} consideration^{of, the case of the petitioner by condoning the shortfall} of l9 days^{in attaining the age of 16 years as on the date of'death of'} her father.

¶46

On the other hand, leamed Standing^{Counselfor the} respondents^{No.1 & 3 relied uponthe averments made in the counter} affidavit^{and has supported the impugnedorder. He has also relied} upon the^{GovernmentMemo dated12.08.2003, reiterating that the} applicant^{must havecompleted or attained 16 years of age as on tht-'} date of^{drlath of the employeefor being consideredfor compassionate} appointment.

¶47

I{aving considered the rival submissions and^{the materialon} record, this Court^{finds that thereis no disputeregarding the fact that} the petitioner fell short^{of the prescribed age of 16 years by only19} days as on the date of death of^{her father.} It^{is evidentfrom thr:} Governmt:nt Orders placed on record that the Govemment^{has the} power to relax the said condition and has, in fact, exercised such power in :;everal cases. Further, the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.2ri184 of 2011 has clearly held that the Govemment is

¶48

TMDJ wp_14449 2019

¶49

5

¶50

required to adopt a consistent approach^and cannot^{grant the benefit of} relaxation to certain applicants^while denying^{the same to others who} are similarly placed. [n view of the above, this Courtdeems^{it fitand} proper to set aside the memo dated 16.04.2018^{issued by respondent} No.1 and direct the respondents to reconsider^{the case of the petitioner} for compassionate appointment by condoning^{the shortfall of 19 days} in attaining the age of i6 years and thereafter^{consider her case for} compasstonate arppointlnent in aceordance with law, if^{she is} otherwise eligible. The entire exercise^{shall be completedwithina} period of three (3) months from the date of receipt^{of a copy of this} order