Smt. G. Sai Laxmi Vs The State of Telangana

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, declaring the action of the respondent nos.5 in issuing Memo No. A1/44212023- 24 dt. 13-11-2024 wherein NOC is directed to be furnished from the other family members is'illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the said memo and further direct the respondent nos.2 to 6 to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in any suitable post.

¶20

t.A.

¶21

Petition Under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filerd in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the respondenl nos. 2 to 6 to consider the claim of the^petitioner for appointment in any suitable post on compassionate ground in view of death of her husband pursuant to th,a application dt.^'1 1- 7- 2023 without reference to the Memo No. A1144212023-24 dt. 13- 11- 2024 issued by respondent no. 5,^pending disposal of the above writ^petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI NAYAKAWADI RAMESH

¶23

Counsel for th,e Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVET.OPMENT

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S & 6 : SRI P.KISHORE RAO

¶25

The Court made the following ORDER

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶28

WRIT N No.32236 of 2o24

¶29

THE IOTH DAY OF FEBRUARY 20/26

Between:

Smt. G. Sai Laxmi.

...Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana, Rep. by principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development and (5) others.

¶35

...Respondents

¶36

ORDER:

¶37

Heard sri Nayakawadi Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. M.Shalini, learned Government pleader for services-ll appearing for the respond.ent Nos. L to 4 and sri K.Pradeep Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.S and 6. perused the material available on record.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondent No.5 in issuing Memo No.Atl442/2023-24 dated

¶39

t:

¶40

2

¶41

SK, J w.P.No.32236 ol2C?.4

¶42

13.11.21)24, wherein the petitioner was directed to furnish a No-objection certificate (Noc) from other family members, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶43

Leerrned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the peti':ioner is the wife of the late M. shiva Kumar, who worked as an office Subordinate at zilla parishad High school, chintakunta and while in service, he died on 19 -o5.2ct23 - The petitioner is the legal heir and eligible survivor entitled to compassionate appointment as per G.o.Ms.irlo.687, General Administration (Services_A) Department, dated 03.10.1972 and. she has no other source of incorne and must support her minor daughter. Accordingly, she applied for compassionate appointment to the resp,ndents. In response to the same, the respondent No.5 issued Memo No.A r /442 /2023-24 dated 13.1 t.2024, directing her to furnish Noc from other family members. The petitioner cannot obtain Noc from her mother-in-law due to family d isputes between them, as the husband of the petitioner committed suicide.

¶44

4- Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

¶45

-*--7 ./

¶46

J

¶47

SK, J W.P.No.322l6 of 2024

¶48

the petitioner's mother-in-raw is not a dependent family member, &S she receives a Government pension uid.e ppo No:zPP /wNp/89 6 /Fp consequent to the death of her husband i-e-, the petitioner's father-in-raw and the petitioner's brother-in-law is also employed. Moreover, the petitioner had previously filed w.P.No.3050g of 2023, which was withdrawn with liberty to take future action after the respondents assured that they would consider her appointment- However, instead of appointing her, they issued the impugned memo herein, insisting on NOC. In view of the same, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed this court to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned Memo No.A L / 442 / 2023-24 dated 13. 1 t .2024 issued by the respondent No.4 and consequently to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in any suitable post.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner reried on the order dated 08.06.2021 passed by the High court of Jharkhand in Mamoni Gorai us. The state of Jharkhand, and othersr.

¶50

I Order dated 08.06.2021 in W.t,.(S).No.2683 of 2020 i\ passed by the High Court of Jharkhand (Unreported)

¶51

4

¶52

SK, J W.P.No.32236 of 2024

¶53

on the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.S and 6, basing on the counter filed by the respondcnt No.5, submits that the petitioner submitted representations on l L .or .2023 and oT .o9.2024, stating thrat she had completed her education in Hyderabad and is residing there. The petitioner requested appointment on compassionate grounds in Hyderabad or Ranga Reddy District, despite her husband having worked in wanaparthy District.^'l'he petitioner is currently placed at Serial No.19 in the waitinSl list and must wait for her turn for compassionate appointment. However, acting on her representation, the respondeni: No. 5 uide letter dated 12.o9 .2024, has recommenrled to the higher authorities to relax the local cadre rule s to consider her appointment in Hyderabad or Ranga Reddy District, where she feels more secure. Further, the Government has issued instructions allowing concessions for widows of deceased employees to be appointed where they feel secure and the respondent No.5 has communicated the said recomrrlendation to the respondent No.3. In view of the same,-fsarned Standing counsel requested this court to pass ,r' appropriate orders.

¶54

5

¶55

SK, J W.P.No.32236 of 2O24

¶56

7 . Learned Government Pleader for Services-ll appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 fairly acceded with the submissions made by learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.5 and 6 and requested to pass appropriate orders.

¶57

After hearing both sides and perusing the entire material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that there is no dispute with regard to the death of the husband of the petitioner on 19 .O5.2O23, while he was working as Office Subordinate at Zrlla Parishad High School, Chintakunta. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner died by suicide and there are family disputes between the petitioner and her in-laws. The Tahsildar issued family member certificate for the deceased employee, including three (3) family members ub., the petitioner, her minor daughter and the mother-in-law of the petitioner. The respondents are demanding the petitioner to produce NOC from the other family members. However, the only remaining family member of the deceased employee for giving NOC, as per the Tahsildar's family member certificate, is the mother-in-law of the petitioner i.e., Smt. Laxmi

¶58

6

¶59

I I I I i I I I

¶60

SK,.I W.P.No.32236 of 2024

¶61

Once there are existing family disputes, the question of obtaining NOC from the mother-in-law of the petitioner is very diffic:uIt. Moreover, the petitioner filed a self-declaration aflidavit before this Court uide Memo dated 23.12.2025 in W.P.USR.No.150138 of 2025, stating that she will take care of her mother-in-law for her lifetime.

¶62

The order in Mantoni Gorai (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, squarely applies to the facts of t,re instance case. The relevant portion of the said order, reads as under:

¶63

"Ele that as it maA, hauing gone through the riual submis.sions of the parties and on pentsal of the records it appear:; tlnt onlg legal impediment coming to the wag for compassionate appointment was NOC from her mother-in-law. As the petitioner has furnished an affidaui\ mentioning therein that she uill take care of her mother-inlaw throughout her life and also the respondent No.S has not appeared before this Court despite prouiding ample opporturuity, the same may be considered bg the respondents. Similar issue fell for consideration before this Court ir,, case of Gita Vs. Bharat Coking Coal United and Others, reportecl in (2015) 2 JLJR 623, tuherein it has been held thus:

¶64

Hauing considered the riual submissions of the parties and fachml^{backdrop of the case, as noticedhereinaboue, it} appears that the rejection of the^petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment simplg on the ground of obje,:tion by the mother-in-Iaw on unsubstantiated alleoations that the petitioner was inuolued in the murder of lrcr ,\usband and she had maried another person after his death, is not proper in the eye of law. Mere suspicion cannot take tlrc place of proof. Respondents do not appear to haue

¶65

7

¶66

SK, J W.P.No.32236 o12024

¶67

conducted anA inquiry further to find out as to whether^the petitioner had reallA entered into second mariage after the death of her husband. Th.e Controlling Authority under the Pagment of Gratuity Act hauing found the claim of the petitioner admissible being the nominee, has also released the same in 2O09 itself. As a matter of fact, allegation that the petitioner was inuolued in the murder of her husband, deceased emplogee, is wholly untenable on facts also as in the FIR registered against the unknown for the said incident, upon submrssron of the final form bg the police, learned Trial Court has also accepted the same and the case has been closed. It is not in doubt that the deceased has lefi behind the petitioner widow along with two minor sons utho were dependent upon him. Death has occurred in August 2006 and since then, dependents are scurrging for relief, but the respondents do not appear to haue giuen a sgmpathetic consideration. The requirement of furnishing no objection certificate cannot be alloued to become a tool in the hands of the person utho has certain grudge, mag be against the claimant in such circumstances

¶68

As a cumulatiue effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement, impugned order dated 17.08.2020 is herebg quashed and set aside and. as such, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation before the respondents, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Afier receipt of the same, the respondents shall reconsider the case of the petitioner and pass a fresh order regarding compassionate appointment and issue appointment letter to her, within a further period of eight weeks as the petitioner fulfills all the requisite qualification and there is no ang other legal impediment coming in the waA of compassionate ground, with a condition that the petitioner shall take care of her mother-in-law throughout her life."

¶69

1 1. The' above findings of the High Court of Jharkhand are similar to the facts of the instant case. The respondent No.5 issued the impugned Memo demanding the petitioner to submit NOC from other family members, which is not in the

¶70

8

¶71

:SK,^J W.P.No.32236 ol 2024

¶72

hands of the petitioner. Moreover, the counter filed by the respondont No. 5 nowhere mention with regard to the impugned memo dated 13.11 .2024 for demanding the Noc and on the other hand, it states that the respondent No.5 has sent a l,:tter to the higher authorities uide Lr.No.Al/4421 2023-24 dated 12.09.2024 for considering the case of the petitione:: for appointment under compassionate grounds in Hyderabzrd or Ranga Reddy District. [n view of the same, the respondents shall take into account of the self-declaration affidavit submitted by the petitioner before this court ancl process the application made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment without insisting on the Noc from the other family members. They should also take into account c,f her request for appointment in either Hyderabad or Ranga Reddy District, as per the policy of the state Government.

¶73

L2. In vi ew of the above findings, this writ petition is disposed c,f by setting the impugned Memo No.A I /442 /202324 dated .t3.1r.2o24 issued by the respondent No.S and the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitiorrer for compassionate'appointment in any suitable

¶74

I

¶75

SK, J W.P.No.32235 of 2024

¶76

post as per G.o.Ms.No.687, General Administration (servicesA) Department, dated 03. 1 O.L977 , taking into account the

¶77

self declaration affidavit submitted by the petitioner before this Court utde Memo dated 23.12.2025 in w. P. USR. No. 1 50 138 of 2025 and without insisting for submission of a No-objection certificate from the family members.

¶78

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. There shatl be no order as to costs.

¶79

SD/. P. PONNA^KRISHNA ASSISTANT

¶80

//TRUE^COPY//

¶81

One fair^{copy to the HON'BLESRI JUSTICE K' SARATH} ' ifot His LordshiP's Kind Perusal)

¶82

To Rural DeveloPment^Secretariat,

¶83

1 ofTelangana,^{PanchaYat Raj and}

¶84

1. at Hyderabad

¶85

3 4. The District^Collector Praia Parishad^{(ZPP) WanaParthY'}

¶86

1. The Chief^Executive

¶87

WanaoarthY^District.

¶88

School^{(ZPHS) Chintakunta, Panagal}

¶89

1. iir; H;;d Master,^{Zilla Parishad High}

¶90

\ (M) WanaParthY^Distiict. \ 7. 11 L.R. CoPies.CoPies.

¶91

11 L.R. CoPies.CoPies. 8 The Under^{SecretarY, Unionof lndia'} Ministry^{of Law, Justice and ComPanY} Affairs, New^Delhi. r!- - . :L---

¶92

g. The secretary, reiangan, Advocates^{Association Library, High court} 10. Two Buildings, ccs^{to GP} Hyderabad^{F6H PANcHAYAT. RAJ} ,^{AND Ru-BA! DEVELoPMENT'} Arrh Dr rDAr r^High '- ffirt f"ig," st"t" oi r"i"ng"na at-Hyderabad. toul_ 1 1 . one cc^{to sRt r.iivArnwxot nnMESH'aoypggl:loPuc]} ii. il; cc^{6 SRi i:KisH-oRERRo, Advocate (oPUC)} 13.Two^{CD CoPies}

SA

I i I i

HIGH COURT

DATED:11 010212026

L o TTE
+
tro
"$
$
9IH +

¶98

ORDER