Disposed¶60

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. M.Venkateswarulu

Telangana HC6 Jan 2026WP/8769/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment; BSNL; Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench; OA No.640 of 2020; modification of Tribunal direction; reconsideration versus direct order of appointment; inordinate delay; Article 226; writ of certiorari; S.151 CPC applications; C.P.No.30 of 2025; three-month timeline; no costs; Telangana High Court; disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; operative portion of the CAT's direction modified so that BSNL shall reconsider respondent No.1/applicant's case and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a reasonable time, preferably three months from receipt of a copy of the order; no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications pending, if any, stand closed. ¶60

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs M.Venkateswarulu — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether the CAT could properly direct BSNL to issue compassionate appointment to respondent No.1 straightaway, instead of remanding the matter to the employer organisation for reconsideration.

¶55

Court's answer

If the learned CAT was of the view that the matter requires reconsideration, the petitioners/respondents-BSNL should not have been asked to issue appointment under compassionate grounds straightaway; reconsideration lies in the domain of the employer organisation.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The operative part of the impugned direction is modified to the extent that BSNL shall reconsider the case of respondent No.1/applicant and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a reasonable time, preferably three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶59

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No.8769 of 2025 (High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, Division Bench: Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin, 06.01.2026) - BSNL & 3 others v. M.Venkateswarulu & 2 others. By order dated 01.03.2024 in OA No.640 of 2020, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, noting inordinate delay by the respondents, had disposed of the applicant's plea for compassionate appointment by directing BSNL to 'consider the case of the applicant and issue appointment under compassionate grounds'. BSNL challenged this on the limited ground that, where reconsideration is called for, the matter ought to have been remanded to the employer organisation rather than resolved by a direct order of appointment; counsel for respondent No.1 could not controvert this. Held: if the Tribunal considered reconsideration necessary, BSNL should not have been asked to issue compassionate appointment straightaway. The operative part of the impugned direction was modified: BSNL to reconsider the applicant's case and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a reasonable time, preferably three months from receipt of a copy of the order. Writ petition disposed of without costs.

¶1

[³⁴⁸⁸ I

¶2

tN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE^{SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYSIX}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{THE CHIEF JUSTICEAPARESH KUMAR SINGH} AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN}

¶8

WRIT PETITION^{NO: 8769 OF 2025}

¶9

Between:

¶10

Bharat Sanchar^{Nigam Limited, representedby its chairman and Managing} Director,^gSN[ Cor"porate^{Office, Bharakamba Road,New Delhi- 110 001.}

¶11

The Chief General^{[/anager,Andhra Pradesh Circle, Hyderabad- I Now at} Chuttugu ntaa,^VijaYawada.

¶12

The Chief General^{l/anager, Telecom, Telangana Circle, DoorSanchar}

¶13

Bhavan, Nampally^{Station Road, Abids, Hyderabad -1'}

¶14

The General Manager,^{Telecom District, BSNL Bhavan, SuryapetDistrict.}

¶15

.....PETITIONERS

¶16

AND^.

¶17

1 . tM.Venkateswarulu,^{S/o. Late tvl.GopaiahAged about36 years,.occ} Unemploy"., nr.^if -ruo.t^{1-145t43i1,Ambedkar Colony, Kodada, Suryapet} District, Telangana -^508206.

¶18

Uniorr of lndia,^{by its Secretary Departmentof Telecommunications,20,} Ashoka Road, New^Delhi.

¶19

The Central Administrative^{Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad,Rep- by} its Registrar.

¶20

.....RESPONDENTS

¶21

petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court maybe} pleased to issue any order, direction^{or writ particularly one in the nature of Writ} of CERTIORART under^{Article 226 of the Constitutionof lndia, to call for the} records^pertaining to the^{order dated01-03-2024in OA No.640of 2020 on the file}

¶22

l- :. ..,. , i.-

¶23

of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal,^{HyderabadBench, at Hyderabad} and quash the same declaring as illegal, arbitrary^{and withoutjurisdiction.}

¶24

|.A.NO:1 OF 2025

¶25

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} suspend the order dated 01-3-2024 in^{OA No.640} of^{2O20 on the file of the} Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal,^{Hyderabad Bench,at Hyderabad.} |.A.NO:2 OF 2025

¶26

Petition Under Section 151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the^{circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay} the all further proceedings in the C.P.No.30 of 2025 in OA^{No.640 of 2020on the} file of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad^Bench,at Hyderabad, including appearance of the^petitioners herein on 14-08-2025^before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad^{Bench, at Hyderabad.}

¶27

Counselfor the Petitioners : Ms. P.SARADA,^{ADVOCATE FORMs T.MANJULA} (sc FoR BSNL)

¶28

Counselfor the Respondent No.1^: SRI G.PAVANA^MURTHY

¶29

Counselfor the Respondent No.2 : SRI B.MUKHERJEE,^REPRESENTING SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF^INDIA

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 :^--

¶31

The Court made the following ORDER

¶32

-17

¶33

IN TTIE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶34

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH

AND

H 'BLE CEG

2025

DATED: 06.01.2026

Between:

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, BSNL Corporate Office, Bharakamba Road, New Delhi - 110 001 & 3 others

¶41

.. Petitioners

¶42

AND

¶43

M.Venkateswarulu & 2 others

¶44

Respondents

¶45

ORDER

¶46

Heard Ms. P.Sarada, learned counsel representing Ms. T.Manjula, leamed Standing Counsel for Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), appearing for the petitioners, Mr. G.Pavana Murthy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.l/applicant and Mr. B.Mukherjee, leamed counsel representing Mr. N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No.2.

¶47

The learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned CAT') vide impugned order dated 01.03.2024 passed in

i ri ! 'tI ? rl

! I i u tI t

oN2l/64012020 has issued the following directions

¶52

on the question of

¶53

compassionate appointment to respondent No. l/appticant.

¶54

"9. In view of the above position, the case of the applicant deserves consideration for compassionate appointment. As observecl by the Hon'ble Supreme Court supra, in thc instant case also. there has been inordinate delay on the part of the respondelts in considering the case of the applicant and the applicant cannot be made to suffer for no fault of him. The respondents are accordingly clirected to consider the case of the appticant and issue appointment under compassionate grounds. The OA is disposed of. No order as to costs."

¶55

The petitioners/respondents-BsNL being aggrieved has preferred the writ petition. One of the primary grounds for challenge is that the impugned operative portion also directs the petitioners to issue appointment under compassionate grounds, whereas in such cases the matter should hSve been remanded to reconsider the case of respondent No.l/applicant, which is in the domain of the emp loi,er organisation.

¶56

On this limited point, learned counsel for respondent No.l/applicant has also not been able to controvert the submission of the writ petitioners.

¶57

We are of the view that if the learned CAT was of the view that the matter requires reconsideration for the reasons stated herein, the petitioners/respondentsBSNL should not have been asked to issue appointment under compassionate grounds straightaway.

¶58

¶59

Therefore, the operative part of the impugned direction is modified to the extent that the petitioners/respondents-BSNL shall^reconsider the^{case of} respondent No.l/applicant and^pass appropriate^{orders, in accordancewith law,} but within a reasonable time,^{preferably threemonths from the date of receipt of} copy of the order.

¶60