Andhra Pradesh High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

#1. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…. to issue a writ more particularly in the form of Writ of certiorari to call for the Proceedings vide File No.TTD-13021(68)/54/2022-RECTS SEC-TTD dated 14.05.2023 issued by the 3rd respondent whereby rejecting the claim for employment assistance to the petitioner on compassionate grounds and to quash the same for it being per se illegal manifestly arbitrary unreasonable irrational perverse unfair unconstitutional besides being violative of Principles of Natural Justice besides being opposed to the very spirit and object of Justice and Fair play and Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to consequentially direct the respondents to provide employment assistance to the petitioner and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2

#2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the father of the petitioner while working as fitter bearing GIS No.15610 in the Office of the Deputy Executive Engineer, Water Works Sub-Division, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, died on

17.11.2022. Due to his sudden demise, the petitioner herein and her mother are suffering a lot for eking out a living, as they were dependent on his father’s earning. In view of the same, the petitioner’s mother made a representation dated 02.12.2022 to the respondent authorities requesting to grant employment assistance to her only daughter i.e., petitioner herein on compassionate grounds. It is further case of the petitioner that she is legally married, however, the husband of the petitioner is not gainfully employed and is not having any standard income. While things stood thus, to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, the respondents have rejected the representation of the mother of the petitioner vide file No.TTD-13021(68)/54/2022- RECTS SEC-TTD dated 14.05.2023 without giving any reasons. Thereafter, when the petitioner reliably known the reason for rejection of the said representation, preferred an appeal dated 11.11.2024, before the 3rd respondent. However, the same was not considered.

#3. Heard Sri B. Venkatesh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

#4. On hearing, learned counsel the petitioner submits that as representation of the petitioner’s mother for grant of employment assistance to her only daughter i.e., petitioner herein on compassionate grounds was rejected by the 4th respondent, she preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent and the same is pending consideration. But, the respondents have not taken any action so far. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to pass appropriate reasoned orders.

#5. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that if the petitioner submits a fresh application with all the relevant documents, the respondent authorities will consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

#6. Considering the submissions of both the learned counsel, this Court deems fit to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: 3 (i) The petitioner is directed to submit a fresh application with all the relevant documents to the respondents within Fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) On receipt of such application, the respondents are directed to consider the same and pass an appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law, within a period of three (03) months thereafter.

#7. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stands closed. Date: 10.01.2025 ANS ________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. 4 134 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 781/2025 Date: 10.01.2025 ANS 5