1. Smt A. Poolamma v. The Telanqana State Power Generation of Company Limited (TSGENCO)"

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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the tVlemo No CEIKTPS / O and M / SE/A and P/DE/ADM/Po/ADM/JAO/13.4/D.N0.16/1B,Dated1Bt01t2018issuedbythe3rd respondent in rejecting the appointment of the 2nd petitioner on compassionate ground in any suitable post though as was done in similarly situated persons vide Proc.No CE/KTPS t O and tU / SE/ADM/DE/' ADM/PO iADM/JAO/- B/84/D.No.'14'1l18' Dated 25tOBl2O1B issued by the respondents is illegal arbitrary, discriminative besides violation Article 14' 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and Consequently direct the respondents to appoint 2'1rd petitioner / (A.Sudhakar) on comltassionate ground in any suitable post in the respondents - TSGENCO lA NO: 1 OF 2024 petition under {)ection 151 CPC praying that in the circumst lnces stated in the affidavit filecl in s Lrpport of the petition, the HiEh Court may be pleased to permit the Responderts herein to file the additional affidavrt and dccuments. IA NO: 'l OF 2020 Petition under {),:ction 151 cPC praying that in the circumstr'tnces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondentrj to consider the 2nd petitioner on compass onate grounds and on humanitarians ltrounds in any suitable post pending disposzrl of w.P. IA NO: 1 OF 2021 petition under siection 151 CPC praying that in the circumsti,rnces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to permit the Respondenls; 1 to 3 to file the additional material docume'nts Counsel for the Petiti,:ner : SRI G.ALLABAKASH counser for the Resp,rndents: t_fl x]3Jiil".tt,$ F3[T3'a!",{;" The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA TIONN 369 of 2020 o.3 TPETI ,o o"r",on ord.:- :;,t'nol;o#";1y*:::rllr::; This writ petition is frled seeking the following prayer:- t "'"- w ; i,r ;1fin, : i ty y' xl :^:n \' !!,J !;,i,"?,i" t 8 0I 20 t B *?iii #' ii""*r on amPassionare ground n " doni in simitortv sitoted Z':;'::T:;;.',::i :;;;;;;;' "i:J"'ililyyiyil?:'i2?!:'y!Z:,1#,y'f lf i:':L ^ iE :1':;#.:;',:',:t::.,;;\':ii;iff,#trlii,"3?:::; i:xi:;::i;;,;,;;i:i"::nf ;:"""::tr::i::I{;i::.i1: '.i' 7.-) r. t oA on comqosstc tPi!!f,"""iI;; rscENco and Poss ' Thereaftet, l{haamam

2. One Ramaswamy at Palvoncha' was a helper in the respondent canteen Bhadradri Kothagudem District (erstwhile district)' He died in harness on 30'lI'2OI2' Sri A' Sunil Babu' who is the younger son of the petitioner No'1 requested for compassionate appointment on .."or.ra of the death of his father' Sri A'Sunil Babu was appointed as Oflice Subordinate in the canteen KTPS' TS p4lvoncha in the year 2Ol4' Unfortunately' Sri A. Sunil Babu also expired on 31'01'2017' Thereafter' the petitioner No'1 requested the respondent-GENCO to provide appointment to petitioner No'2-Sri A' Sudhakar' The resggdent No'3-Chief Engineer wide Memo dated "o.rrp."t'o"^te GENCO, -_.',i \ 2

18.01.2018 rejr-.,:ted the request of the petitioner No. (i.e., the mother of petir.ioner No.2) for compassionate appoir rtment to petitioner No.2 cn the ground that the RuJes/Regulati,rns of the department stipulate that compassionate appointment would be provided to the younger brother/sister of rhe deceased employee u''ho remained un-married, provided that th ere is no earning members in the family. It is the grievanc = of the petitioner that ,:hough they made a representatior. to the respondents-GE \f co authorities stating that there ls nt, earning member in their family, their request was not considered ald the impugned M,:mo dated lg.Ol.2Olg was issued rejer:ting her representation. F[r:nce, this writ petition. J Heard learrrr:d counsel for petitioners and Sri Vidva54gs1., learned Senior (lounsel, appearing for respondents_( }ENCO. Perused the recor c[.

4. Learned corrnsel for the petitioner relied on the ju Cgment dated 19.03.2021 passed by the High Court of Andhra l,radesh in II. Sita Ratnrrm Vs. Stqte of Andhra prq.deshr. Cn the contrary, learned Sienior Counsel relied on the judgmen; of the 1 2021 sCC Online AP 611 3 Hontrre supreme court in Bank oJ Baroda vs. Barjith singhz in support of their respective contentions.

5. considering the respective submissions, it is not in dispute that Sri A. Sunil Babu was un-married by the date of his death. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 who is the mother of the deceased requested for compassionate appointment to her another son namely sri A. sudhakar (2"a writ petitioner), and her request was rejected by the impugned Memo dated 18.01.2018.

6. It is the contention of the respondent authorities in the counter affrdawt that on the demise of Ramaswamy (husband of the petitioner No. 1), petitioner No. 1 requested for compassionate appointment to Mr. A. Sunil Babu, stating that the 2nd petitioner-Sri A.Sudhakar is .gainfully employed elsewhere and that he also gave Trlo Objection, for compassionate appointment to his brother A. sunil Babu. It is further stated that her daughter (sister of 2'a pefitioner) is already married a,d living separatery. Respondents frled 2 2023 SCC Online SC 745 , r**.="r&iaie 4 additional coun.ter aJlidavit wherein it is stated that the 1st petitioner here:, (mother of the 2"a petitioner) hled an affrdavit stating that the 2.d petitioner-A. Sudhak4r has been rrway from the family for tire past five years and her daughter is r rarried off and living seprrrately with her family; and that Sri A. Sunil Babu (now de,:eased) is her only dependent and therefore, requested the authorities for providing comp assionate appointment to llri A. Sunil Babu, and the authorities provided employment to lim.

7. It may be noted that the case in Batjith Singh (supra 1) was about the request of one Baljith Singh in the Bank of Baroda under tLLe "1998 Scheme", and the issue thart fel for consideration t't:fore the Hon'bre Supreme court was whether the Applicant se tisfied the twin conditions of rrnancial position and eligibility for consideration of compassionate appc intment, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the relevarrt clause relating tc the frnalcial aspect, i.e., monthly irLcome of the applicant . r.om all sources (including net sirlar5r of dependent faro ily members i.e.,spouse/s on/dt.ughter / de\ndent un-married brother/dependent un-marrierI sister, pension, income f,rr other savings/investments) beirrg l<:ss than I 5 6O'h of (less tax @I5%l of the total emoluments' allowed the appeal hled by the Bank, as the cumulative income was exceeding 60%o of the total emoluments of the deceased' therein and therefore, the applicant did not satisfy the hnancial condition, though, he satisfied the eligibility qualifrcations for appointment to the Post of Peon' In the instant case, it may be noted that the very case of 8. the petitioner is that the 2na petitioner is not earning and the 1"t petitioner is d,ependent on the 2"a petitioner' Further' the affrdavit of the I"t petitioner dated 29'08'2013 enclosed by the respondents in the additional counter affidavit states that the 2na petitioner is residing separately from the family of the petitioners at the relevant point of time' Sri A' Sunil Babu expired in the year 2Ol4 and the writ petition is of the year 2O2O. Merely,. residing separately for l-rve years in the year 2013, when the deceased A' Sunil Babu's request for compassionate appointment was under consideration and giving 'No Objection' for consideration of application of A' Sunil Babu cannot be aimed to the disadvantage of the petitioners for the reason that it is the specific plea of the 1"t petitioner-mother that the 2na petitioner is her only dependence' Further' the I I 6 at disqualifies compassionale appointment Rules do not specify t,tat residing separately acl s to the disadvantage of the Applicanl . Given the hapless situ:Ltion brought out in the applica ti,rn of petitioners, re:gative commentations cannot be drawn by reading betwe,:n the lines in the affidavit to make a negative inference that .:he l"t petitioner is not dependent 1,n 1fis lnd petitioner or they have other sources of income th the case of 2"a petitioner_A. Sudhakar Babu for for compassiorLate appointment. Singh (supra2) relied on by the respondents is not applicable to the facts of the case at hand. In that vier,ir of the matter, the Writ petition desePes to be allowed and is erccordingly, allowed. Respondent Nc.3-Chief Executive Officer.rlENCO is directed to consider the re luest of the petitioners for compassionate appointment to 2nd pet itioner_ )ass appropriate orders within a period of four rte of receipt of copy of this order- Nc costs. lications, if any, pending in this wr.it p,:titio con,;ideration The Judgment irr Baljith learned Senior Co rnsel for A.Sudhakar arrd tr weeks from the dr Miscellaneous app 9 shall stand closed SD/-K. SREE RAM. DEPUTY R +, 'i' A MPRTHY F<G16TRAR w SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPYII To, '1 . The Chairman and lvlanaging Director, Telangana State Power Gt'rneration of Company Limited ( ISGENCO), Vidyuth Soudha Khairathabad F yderabad - 500004

2. The Director (HR), Virjyuth Soudha Khairathabad Hyderabad -500( 04 3. The Chief Engtneerr O and M, Vll- stage KTPS Palvoncha Bhadradri Kothagudem District. Previously under Khammam District 507-1 15 / 4 One CC to SRI G.ALLABAKASH, Advocate. IOPUC] 5. One CC to Ms K UDAYA SRt, SC FOR TSGENCO TOPUCJ 6. Two CD Copies. BSK BS I HE. $Iir o.\ o 2+ il't 2025 (' >/ o ,\ i' HIGH COURT DATED:0710111-025 ORDER WP.No.3369 of 2020 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS d W 3 I l