High Court · 2025

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 a direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the Respondents in not appointing the petitioner herein as Conductor Grade ll or any equivalent post on compassionate grounds as per G.O,lvls.No.2, Transport, Roads and Buildings Department dated 5-1-2013 in the existing sanctioned vacancies and conseguently Notification No. PD-04i 13 daled 2-3-2013 issued by the 2nd respondent with all consequently benefits as null, void and against to the Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of lndia and principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents herein to appoint the petitioner herein as ?. I t I I I i 'd I Conductor Grarl : possessed by the :r tr':ioner. or any other equivalent post as per th 3 qualifications lA NO: 1 OF 201t Petition uncie liection 15'1 CPC praying that in the cirr:urrstances stated in the affidavit f I,:,:l l support of the petition, the Hi'gh Court rnay be pleased to direct the resporce r"rs herein to consider and appoint the rr:tit oner herein as Conductor Gracir: I or any other equivalent post as per thll qualifications possessed by thr: p rtitioner on compassionate grounds follcrving G.O.Ms.No.2 Transport, Roarjr; z r,,J Buildings dated 5-1-201 3 in the e) ist ng sanctioned vacancies. Counsel for the F'etirioner: SRI S.KRISHNA SHARMA Counsel forthe Resrrondent No.1: GP FOR TRANSPORT Counsel for the Res rondent No.2 to 4: Ms. SAI MAHITHA. SC FOR TSRTC WRIT PETITION hlO: 7299 OF 2018 Between: N. Aliveni. Vy''o I H.No. 8-e;-52, t Telangana {;ta1 l .ate. G.Ananda Rao, 1, Srinivasapuram Aged about 49 years, Uremployee. R/o Colony, Va nastalip u rarr. Hyderabad AND 1 The State ()f ' €.langana, and Build i n g s l ,1;artment. Secrela riat. Hydtirrabad. Ig]1nggl" Sital : Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its luanaging Director, RTC X Roarrs. ,,usheerabad, Hyderabad. rep. by its Principal Secretary, t-ransports, Roads ..PETITIONER I L II ,:. t" :

3. The Regiorr:rl lv :,nager, T.S.R.T.C. Hyderabad Region, M.(f 8.,:j 4 The Depct lr rnager, Telangana State Road Transco t Musherabad-lt I r-:pot. Musheerabad, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Corporation t. Petition under \ rticle 226 of the Constitution of India prayirg that in the r the affidavit filed therewith, the Higtr Oourt may be circumstances st,al(rl pleased to issue an r rpropriate writ. order or direction more p;trt,3ularly one in the nature of writ o r/andamus by set aside the impugned c:rcurar No.pD ..,RESPONDENTS 30/2000 dated 5-5-2000 in Para lV 22(b) and consequential circular No. PD- 1712017 daled 27-7-2017 issued by the 1st respondent by holding the same as illegal, bad and u nconstitutiona I to the extent of confirming the posts to be considered for spouses/family members for the post of Conductors, drivers and shramiks and not permitting them to be accommodated in any of the clerical posts which is equivalent to or lower than the post,of Conductor etc-, as illegal, and arbitrary and u nconstitutiona I (b) to hold the fixation of height restriction for the post of Conductor as bad and (c) to hold giving relaxation of only 2 cms for the post of Conductor under bread winner scheme as bad illegal, u nconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner as Conductor or in alternative to any of the clerical posts for which she is eligible such as Announcer, Record Tracer, Routine Clerk etc., with effect from the date of her Co-applicants under the said scheme were appointed with all consequential benefits. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 Circular No. PD 30/2000 dated 16-5-2000 in Para lV 22(b) and consequential circular No. PO-'1712017 daled 27-7-2017 issued by the 1st respondent and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Conductor or in alternate in any of the clerical posts for which she is eligible. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.KRISHNA SHARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR TRANSPORT Counsel forthe Respondent No.2 to 4: Ms. SAI MAHITHA, SC FOR TSRTC The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER t i L I $ i h 1 wp_5 50 ii 7299_2018 N 8(, .l THE HON' IIJ [; SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMA-PISA WRI'I'PETI TION Nos.5 60and 7299 of 201tt CoMMoN oBD! ri is the wife of late G. Ananda Rao who rvorked as The petiticre respondent-Road Transport Corporltirln from Conductor in the )'i .20 14. He fell sick and was admitte'J in the 20.02.1986 to ().i. Govemment (1e,ft<,rr I }Jospital and he expired on 03.0-5.20 11. I'etitioner, who is a Gradr-Lat: lrtd also possesses computer knowledg':, jubmitted an application t'r r,ompassionate appointment as per C 'C''Ms'No'2 dated 05.01.201-i. S he was called for interview process vitle le'tter dated 22.Og.2ll6by th< ' "' respondent, under the Bread Winner Sictreme' She attended the intr'r- ow on 06. 10.2016 and produced her education qualification do<:rttl tnts, along with furnishing an Under&rkjng that she did not receive lI tnonetary benefit and that none of her dr;pendents are employed r.li'h t-re Corporation' She states that the 'ltr' rr:spondent had also addrer;:;r:,1 r letter dated 27.09-2016 to the Pers'rttnt:'l Officeg TSRTC, MGEili l'y enclosing a detailed Enquiry Reprrfi dated 21.12.2015; hovrr:r :r; the authorities have not provided r:otnl'rassionate appointment to tlre rretitioner so far. She therefore assails the action of respondent authr)r.ir :s in not appointing her as conductor crarle-Il or in any equivalent t'o i' on compassionate grounds as per (i'()'Ms'No'2 dated 05.01 .20 I 3 r, the existing sanctioned vacancies, f,r' c,)nsequent Notification <latt:<t ' '1.03.2013 issued by 2nd respondent' She also filt: W.P.No.7299 of 2018, aggrieved b'r tht: Circular No.PD-30/2000 rlz.:d 05.05.2000, and consequential Circular No'PD- ./ 2 \ wp_560 & 7299-2018 NBK, J 17/2017 dated 27.07.2017 issued by the I't respondent, and seeks to declare the said circulars as illegal and unconstitutional as the Circulars permit compassionate appointment of spouses/dependents in only the posts of Drivers/Conductors/Shramiks, and not in any other clerical posts. She therefore seeks a direction to the respondent-Corporation to appoint her as Conductor or accommodate her in any clerical cadre post like Announcer, Record Tracer, Routine Clerk etc. with effect from the date of appointment of co-applicants.

2. The parties to the writ petition, and also the subject matter, being common to both the writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this Common Order.

3. Heard Mr. S. Krishna Sharma, leamed counsel for the petitioner; and Ms. Sai Mahitha, leamed Standing Counsel appearing for respondent-Corporation. Perused the record.

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, would submit that the petitioner's case ought to have been considered under the Bread Winner Scheme as per G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 05.01.2013 as the said Scheme was operational during the relevant time when her husband expired while in service. It is contended that the petitioner was not given any Additional Monetary Benefit. It is also contended that the rigid requirements usually made applicable for regular recruitments are not applicable to compassionate appointments as the conditions for compassionate appointees are relaxed as the appointment is on compassionate grounds and therefore the ground taken by the respondent authorities that the petitioner did not fuIfi\the requirement of height which is actually 153 cm height, and /J' 3 wp-s6o & t2ttg'z1la NBK, J even considering tht: rt lrrxation to women ' it comes to 147 cnr' t'ut the petitioner is about 'L' ':;m height' Leamed counsel therefort: :o rtends that the rejection ol lr trtioner's case for compassionate appc'itttntent is arbitrary and illegal' ;1 'r relies on the judgment dated 25'04'2018'rassed by this Court in W I'' \ r I 2468 of 201 5 5. Leamed Stan<lir ''r Counsel Ms' Mahitha' basing on the r':ounter affrdavit, contends thr t the age limit for compassionate appointrnent is 35 years and the p()tit :)rler was over 49 years'and further the prescribed height for consicle'rir; to the post of Conductor is 153 cm rnd for women candidates th ;lrescribed height is 147 cm' and the petilioner is about 142 cm tall rtnc lherefore she did not meet the 'height' :'n'"ti :1 therefore her case w I'! not considered for the post of Conduc':or' She draws the attenti,)r t,f the courl to paragraph No'8 of the counter afFrdavit filed itr \\ '''No'560 of 2018 and submits that rrs per the -'t: Selection Committee' the petitioner mav opt for recommendation 'r-'' additional monetar\ rt:nefit in lieu of compassionate appointment' l.re submissions made by the leameJ Standing rnsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent ,,ected to grant additional monetaq'bent'fiI'

6. Advertin,s t I Counsel, leamed < ': authoiities ma1' be c 7. Having consl Jr:red the respective submissions and perused the record, it may be nc ri:d that the grievance of the petitioner Ls she was not given compassicra : appointment under Bread Winner Schlnre in spite of her being eligilrl : tbr appointment' However' as can be scelt from the counter affrdal it, i person has to meet the criteria of age ir's well as height for consii:r rl'ion to the post of Conductor' and those t:riteria are \,/ \t' I 4 wp_s50 & 7299_2018 NBK, J relaxed to a certain extent in the case of compassionate appointments. It is stated in paragraph No.8 of the counter affrdavit as follows: "8. lt is submitted that the Petitioner did not futfiil the etigibility criteria even after considering height relaxation of 147 cms, the Petitioner does not meet the required height of 142 cms as the Petitioner's height is only 142 cms. The petitioner was aged over 49 years which is more than the maximum permissible age limit of 35 years to be considered for the post of conductor. Therefore the case of the Petitioner was not considered for the post of Conductor as she failed to fulfill the eligibility criteria for the Conductor. As per the recommendation of the selection committee the Petitioner may opt for additional monetary benefit in lieu of compassionate appointment."

8. As can be seen in the instant case, the Selection Committee has considered the case of the petitionet however, as she crossed the maximum age limit and also did not meet the height criteria, she could not be given the appointment.

9. The counter affidavit further discloses that the posts offered under the Bread Winner Scheme are Conductor-Il, Driver-Il, and Shramik; and one more category is said to have been add,ed, vide Circular No.PD- 17/2017 dated 27.07.2017, and that is 'RTC Constable'. The category of posts considered under Bread Winner Scheme/compassionate appointment being a matter of policy decision of the respondent- Corporation taking into account various factors, the same cannot be said to be illegal, without there being any supporting evidentiary material in support of such a contention. In view of the foregoing, this Court does not see any illegality in the impugned action of respondent-Corporation. wl) 56C a 72t9 2Ol8 N BK, J

10. [n view of the s ,,:cific stand of the respondent-Corpora.ion that the Selection Committe : recommended for Additional Monetaq Benefit to the petitioner in lliea r I'compassionate appointment, this Court clirects the respondent-Corporr lrcn to release the Additional Monetary Benefit as applicable to the Jrr't.i oner, within four weeks from the date o1-r:ceipt of a copy of this ordt:r.

11. Accordingly, tlr: ,vrit petitions are disposed of with the rbove direction. No costs. NIi r.:ellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// To, 1 2 The Princrpal S'€ c 11ary. Transports, Roads Secretariat, Hyce'r:t ir(J State Of Telangana. The Managing D r,:r .'rr, Telangana State Road Transport Corpcrati'ln. RTC X Roads, Mulheeraba r HYderabad. The Regional Mana, r:rr T.S.R.T.C. Hyderabad Region, M.G B li H1'derabad Ir:r', Telangana State Road Transpolt Crorporation . Musheerabad. Hyderabad. . SD/.MOHD. ISMAII A \Erp['iV'ti"orb1ifrrl - / I \\ srcrr,)N oFFlcER ,\/ rr,,o,nn, D )partment. siHNA SHARMA, Advocate [OPUCI /I\HITHA, SC FOR TSRTC [OPUC] -IRAG, SC FOR TSRTC [OPUC] I TRANSPORT, High Court for the State of Telangana at J 4. The Depot Marra Musherabad-ll D,:tr< 5. One CC to SRI S.l(t 6, One CC to Ms, SA I 7. One CC to SRI F.,t,1 8. Two CCs to GP =l) Hyderabad [OUT]

9. Two CD Copies BSR BS 8,. , l l l i I ; i I I l I ; l : I 'i ,i I I t, r- .,1 HIGH COUR'T DATED: 271A8 t2025 ) COMMON OF DER WP.Nos.560 a nd 7299 of 2018 \ 1..., . , A[€ k + 3, ?2l7.rg' ,ffi d 't) S C a DISPOSING ( IF BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS, WITHOUT CCISTS r\.\ a, ) {^ I r i I t i I i 4 t E E