S. Sanjeev v. 1. The Superintending Engineer

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 a. WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 issuing rejection Order vide Lr.No.DEE/OP/BNS/JAO/ADM/ D.No.221 dated 17.07.2020 and not appointing the Petitioner on any suitable post on compassionate grounds in place of Petitioner's father S. Sayanna, inspite of representation dated 22.11.2023 made by the Petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the rejection Order vide Lr.No.DEE/OP/BNS/JAO/ ADM/D.No.221 dated 17.07 .2020 issued by Respondent No.3, in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circr- rstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court rray be pleased to direct the Respondents to appoint the petitioner on an y' suitabre posr on compassionate grounds in place of petitioner's father s. say: r na, by considering the representation dated 22.11.2023 made by the petitioner I ending disposal of the main Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circr nstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court r ray be preased to suspend the rejection order vide Lr.No.DEE/op/BNS/JAO/AI) 4/ D No 221 dated 17.07.2020 issued by Respondent No.3, pending disposa of the main writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI D.L.pANDU, rep., SRI D.V.SF I IKANT Counsel for the Respondents: SRt A.CHANDRA SHAKER, ( Si,) FOR NPDCL) The Court made the following: ORDER Ir IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.778 of 2o24 Dated Sth December, 2025. Between: S. Sanjeev AND ... Petitioner The Superintending trngineer, Operation Circle, TSNPDCL (OP) Nirmal, Nirmal Dislrict, Telangana State, and two oLhers ORDER: Respondents Aggrieved by the action of the rcspondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionatc appointment vide impugned order in Lr.No.Dtrtr/OP/BNS/JAO/ADM/D.No.22t dated 17.O7.2O20, issued by respondent No.4, the prcsent writ petition is filed. 2- Heard Sri D.L. Pandu, lcarned counsel, representing Sri D.V. Shrikanth, learned counsel for thc petitioner, and Sri A. Chandra Shaker, Iearned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf oi respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2 - PK, J tv.P.Na 778 of 2024

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits tl it the peLitioner's fatl'rer, Mr. S. Sayanna, while working as a Lineman ol Bhainsa Division, went missing since 07.O7.20 12, and he was the only br c ld n inner for their famity. Therefore, a complaint was lodged before th r: Police concerned, who after making required efforts, declared him t r traceable', anci a certihcate to that effect rvas issued. As such, to eke out a livclihood lor his family, the petitioner submitted his representation 1c the respondcnls. seeking appointment to a suitable post, undcr comp r based on his educational qualihcations. It is s._r ssionate grounds, lmitted that the Govcrnment has issued orders for appointment of spou s ) or any one of the depcndants of a deceased employee under compassione -e grounds, u'hich has been duly adopted by the respondent CorporatiorL. Despite the samc, respondent No.3 rejected the claim of the petitioner for : opointment under compassionate ground s vide impugned order in t,r . Io.DEE/OPi BNS/ JAO/ADM/D No.221 dated 17.O7.2O2O, without anv 'alicl ju st ification. Therefore, learncd counscl seeks indulgence of this (l respondenLs to appoinl the petitioner in any sLrir )urt to direct thc .rble post undcr compassion ale grounds.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel apl)( aring on behalf of the respondents submits that the erstwhile Goverr ment of Andhra Pradesh had formulated a scheme for compassional.e ippointment vide 3 PK, J W.P.No 778 of 2024 G.O.Ms.No.687 dated 03.10.1977, which has been duly adopted by the respondent Corporation, for appointment of one of the depcndants of the employee, who has disappeared or whose whereabouts are untraceable for more than seven years. It is submitted that lhe petitioner,s father, Mr. S. Sayanna, Lineman, Bhainsa Division, did not report to duty lrom

07.O3.2O12, and he went missing since [hen. Subsequently, the police also submitted a report stating that the petitioner's father is not traceab.le. However, the petitioner's father was due to rctirc from service on

30.06.2016, and he had less than seven years of service rcmaining, when hc went missing. As such, under the scheme for compassionate appointment, the dependants of an employee, who had less than seven years to retire from service, are incligible for compassionate appointment. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected b_r, respondent No.3 vide impugned order dated 17.O7.2O2O. Hence, ir is praved to dismiss the present writ petition as devoid of merits.

5. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the rcspective parties, this Court deems it apposite to refer to the Schcme of Compassionate Appointment to the dependents of Government trmployees who died in harness and who are found missing and whereabouts are not known. The relevant portion of the said Scheme is extracted hereunder: 4 - DK, J W.P.No.77B of 2024 "(ri) Onc ot the deDendents of the Governr.t( rt employec, who has disappeared and whosc rvhereabo.uts *" "",-t"",, , ;;. ;,;," than 7 (scren) _vears. subjcct to the follorving conditrons: l,,l .\ r'r.quesr lor grant of rhc benefil 9f_comp.r \ ,1al^ appolrtm1'r.lls , rn hc considcrcd ontr.aftcr a lapse of7 (seve, ",,r" fro* .hc datc from u'hich tl.re Government servant has b.;;;,:.; ,g, ir,ln.'.ia.a ,rl.,, 14 An Fill (First Informarion Reporr.) to rlr ; effccr has bcen lodged iri) The.police report shall certify that I c missrng Govcrnment (iii) The competent authority feels that the ., sc is genuine; emplo,vec is not traceable; aJId rvith tlre police; (lr) 'lhis l:enefit shall servanti not be applicable to th, r.ase oI a Govcrnment (i) who had less tha.r 7 (seven) years t( ctrrc on t'e datc fr.orn (ir) rvho rs suspecLed to have committcd t.an ecl or suspccted Lo ha\rc joined.any terrorist/extremist organisa ; ,,r or sLisie,ctea to na"e gone abroad. rvhich the FIR is nled; and/or reslttr of the police invcstigari"" 1,. \Vhrl, r-onsirlcrrng the requcsl for compas.,,nat(. .lppcrntm.'nt lhe (l ,l,pplrcants for compassionatc appointmenr t om the depcndcnts oI such missing Government cmpllyees i ,';,.,r;;;^;ica u,ithin a pcriod of or.rc year rrom rhe date- oi cornfiei,.,, .rf ii.*i,f rears frorn the datc of filing F.lR rvith police." i *"1',r15[ ."u",, "hr,;;r";; "h^tl 6 ts unequivocally clt ;rr From a bare perusal o[ the above Scheme that thc request for compassionate appointmen t , u,ould bc considerecl after comple[ion of seven years from the date, the, rnptoyec nent missirrg, subject to lhc conditions that the police concern(,( shall provide a repoi.t, stating thzr I thc said employee is untraceable, anrl that the said employee must have:tt least seven years of service from the c tte he u,ent missing lill his prosper.r ive date of rctirelnent. 5 PK, J W.P.No.778 of 2024

7. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner's father, Mr. Sayanna, Lineman, Bhainsa Division, went missing from 07.03.2012, and the police havc rcgistered the FIR.No.74/2014 on 07.O5.2014. Thereafter, the police authoritics declare him l-rntraceable' on 26. 1O.2014. Hou,cver, it is the speci['rc case of the respondents that the petitioner's father .,r,as due to retire from service on 30.06.2016, and therefore, the requisite condition of having at least seven years of service from the date he went missing is not satisfied. The same is not disputed by the petitioner by way of a reply or rejoinder.

8. In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality or ir]frrmity in the impugned rejection order dated 17 .OT .2O2O. As such, the present writ petition is devoid of merits, and it is thereforc, tiable Lo be dismissed. 9- Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closcd. No costs SD/. T. SRINIVAS REODY i-ssr5rnr.iin'ectsrnnR / //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 One CC to SRI D.V.SHRIKANT' Advocate' [OPUC] OneCCtoSRIA.CHANDRASHAKER'(SCFORNPDCL)'[OPUC] Two CD CoPies BSK @ iH-: ST4 7':.-. ( g [[B 26 07_ 2a C <) {. HIGH COURT DATED:0511212025 ORDER WP.No.778 of 2024 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS t^ 1 4 'l/