Ms. B.V.N. SAVITH KUMAR FOR SRI G v. SHIVAJI The Cqurt made the following

SRI G. V. SHIVAJI The Cqurt made the following: JUDGMENT h t t t , ! T I i i '1 ;l + ,t !1 k It 'it, THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL No.269 OF 2025 JUDGM EI{T: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujog paul) Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsei appearing for Ms. K.Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. B.V.N.Savitha Kumari, learned counsel appearing for Sri G.V.Shivaji, learned counsel for the respondent 2 With the consent Iinailv heard.

3. In this intra-Court Appeal, the appellants assail the order of learned Single Judge dated 30.07.2O24 passed in W.p.No. 12220 of 2o2o whereby the apperlants/emproyer \{,,as directed to consider the case of the respondent/ Writ petitioner for compassionate appotntment 4 ' The apperiants herein are the respondents a,,d the respondent herein is the petitioner in w.p.N o.rz22o of 2o2o. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to as they are arrayed in the above Writ petition.

5. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are that the writ petitioner is the son of seco.d wife of rate sarfaraz i I --.-I 2 Il, (]J (SP,J) & RY.J Wa 269 2025 Khar-r, Lor:o l-r 'iver/RTS, who died in harness ,)n I Cr (_)9.198g. The Writ Petition:r's mother preferred an appl,catron seeking compassi,natr. appointment on 22.06.1989. Ther<:altr:r, the Writ Petitioner atl er attaining the age of majoritr , tr referred al applicatro r i, August, 2OO2 to the Gener,l ll _a. ager of the responder:ts-l) epartment seeking compassionate appc intment. In this applir;atio r, the writ petitioner himself drscir,sec ris date of birth as '.23.1 ). 1924. Thereafter, the Writ petitioner,s mother preferred zrn al,plication informing that W.p.No 152,C,9 t- 199O was filed seeking c ompassionate appointment by Sri I :rr. rltim Khan, her step son, a,nd the same was dismissed on 19.()!r.20C0. Thus, b,v- preferring zr representation dated 16.OS.2OO2 (hrrn,:>:ure p. 13), a prayer vuas r arle to appoint the writ petitione r. .['h: certihcate issued by \4RC clated Nil. l2.lg1g shou.s that rhe ar:;e cf the Writ Petitioner ts I ..1 r,cars. Since there rvas a discrepa r c] . n the age mentioned in he Writ petitioner,s appiication fileC in August, 2OO2 and thr,'Iv R() certificate, dated Nit. 12.198g, tlx.r,lipondents by commur-ric:rr io. dated 23.I2.2OOT sent the Wr t p,:titioner to Medical Board for. determination of his age. ln llLrr, the Writ Petitioner's i:tg( ..nas assessed by the Medica,l I} ard. By communicatiort rlarted 2S.Ol.2OlO, the Writ petitioner s age was assessed a-. 37 ,,ears. The Medical Board,s recommr: nr lation was \ I & ., n r rACJ (SP.J) & RY.J Wa 269 2025 initially accepted by Director (HR) of A. p. power Generation Corporation Limited, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad by communication dated 25.O1.2O1O. The sarre was later on cancelled by Managing Director on 15.09.2011. Later, the Writ Petitioner's representation for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected by communication dated 1S.Og.20l1.

6. Since no reasons were assigned in the said rejection order, it was set aside by this Court in W.p.No.745 of 2012, dated O3.O9.2O19, and the respondents were directed to consiiler the case of the Writ Petitioner afresh as per the prevailing policy and pass appropriate orders. In turn, the respondents passed detailed order dated 25.IO.2OI9. This order became the subject matter of challenge in the instant Writ Petition i.e., W.p.No.lZ22O of 2O2O. 7 . The case of the Writ Petitioner was that at the time his father died on 10.09.1988, he was aged about 16 years and the Medical Board's report was duly accepted by the Department. As per the Medical Board's report, he is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment on attaining the age of 18 years. The learned Single Judge opined that after having sent the case of the Writ Petitioner for determination of the age to the Medical Board, it was no more open to the respondents to not to accept the sqgre. 4 -i Resultantli', th: learned Single Judge directed <:ons;irle 'ztion of the Writ Petitioncr s c,laim for compassionate appoil-ltmellt lli\,lJ (Sl'.J) & R\'.J \\'a-169 2015 '\l! cONTENTIONI; PETITIO IRESPO TS IN WRIT Learned Senior Counsei for the respondenl s submits that 8. there is no r( zrson to disbelieve the age disclose:l by the writ Petitioner in his representation dated Nil'08 ' 2OO"L '\lthough' as an a[tert]-rou51. rr, the Writ Petitioner's mother tnerl 1o take a 'U' turr-L b-v con-trr lding that the said date of birtn i e' '2) 12'1974 rs erroneoLts lv d sclosed. There is no reason for d is'rt:lieving the I\4RO certifica t:, dated Ni1.12.1988 It also shov":r trat the Writ Petitioner har; not attained 18 years of age withir tw'c vears from the ciate of rl'::rth of his father' Learned Set-t.ior t-)o rnsel placed reliancc c n r r: rious circulars of the respondents a'-r'l I rrged that as per thc pror isions prevailing, the Writ Petitioncr could have preferred an , rolllication for compassionate appointrr ent provided he attainecl tlrr: age of 18 years within two years f-orn the date of deathofhist:tl-rer.Onesuchcommunicationdlllec2|.o2.1991, is reliecl rrpotr g . Ma:u -: thr:r executive instructions in the l;al ne line u'ere relied on bt l:arned Senior Counsel for the re sponclents' Learned ,1 HACJ (SP.J) & RY.J Wa 269 2025 Senior Counsei for the respondents submits that the Writ - 5 Petitioner for the first time approached this Court in 2012, whereas his father died in the year i988 and as per the claim of the Writ Petitioner, he attained majority in 1990. Mereiy because the Writ Petitioner's brother frled a petition before this Court, nothing prevented him to Iile a petition with quite promptitude. The very purpose of granting of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate helping hand to the family in distress. The person who is approaching this Court after few decades is not entitled to get the benefit of compassionate appointment. I 0. To bolster his submission, learned Senior Counsel piaced reliance on two recent judgments of the Supreme Court reported in State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwarir and Canara Bank v. Ajithkunar G.K.z I 1 . In nutshell, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submits that the Writ Petitioner was not eligible as per the governing circulars, because he did not attain the age of 18 years within two years from the date of death of his father. This submission is based on the date disclosed by the Writ Petitioner himself as well as the report of the MRO. Looking from any angle, ' 2023 SCC OnLine SC 219 t:025 SCC ont.ine SC 290 6 IIA:]I(SP,J)&RY,J Wa 269 2025 I the Writ Pet tioner was not eligible to be cor sidered for compassic natt altpointment. The delay in approaci-1ir 16, the Court is afso a rcler';,rnL factor THE STAND OF THE RESPODNENT IWRIT PETITION

12. Lea-necl r:ounsei for the Writ Petitioner sub rr-- i.ts [hat in the counter, the !rri: Petitioner himself stated that sinr:e his brother filed WP.ltlo.l.ll09 of 199O, the matter was kept perrding by the responder ts. Wi-ren that petition was decid ed , the Writ Petitioner's rr ( )1.h er prelerred a representation da t,:d -6.O8.2OO2 and the D:pa:.:nenl decided to refer the case of th,: W,-it Petitioner for medical o:irrnination. By communication dated 23.12.2OO9, the recommen lation of Medical Board was dulv ;l<:ct p ted by the Director on 25 10.2010. Although the Managing tti-et trr reversed the said clecir. orr. the fact remains that the Writ Pe-ilioner filed WP.No.74rr cf l0 i 2 and the same \lras allowed bv s;et-ting aside the non-speal:ing rrcler date d 15.09.201 I and by directrn5r :-espondent No.l therein t) pass a fresh order. In turn, the irtpugned order dated 25. 1C..lr)1() q,as passed promptly. Thereaf.:e r, instar-rt writ petition rvas fl ec and therefore, it calnot be sajd '-h;tt there was any dela1' o1r t.lrc part ol the Writ Petitioner. 'l 1 I]ACJ (SP.J) & RY.J Wa 269 2025 13. The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated

14. We have heard the parties at length. FINDINGS:

15. Before dealing with the rival contentions. it is apposite to mention the relevant Memo dated 2I.O2.1991 as under: "According to Government Memo hrst a minor child may be allowed two vears time from the date of demise of (iovcrnment employqe !s lgcalae pllcrblc for cm ployment. But as per Board's memo, third cited if the application from the dependent considered either after attaining the age of 18 years or after acquiring the required qualihcation for appointment to suitable post.

2. The issue has been examined by the Board and it was decided to follow Government rules to allow two years time to minor dependents from the date of death / retirement on medically invalidation of Board employees ',vhile in service to become eligible for employment. However. the application for emplovment should be re istered within one vear trom the date of death / retirement of emplovee on medrcallv invalidated.

3. The above orders shall come into force from the datc of issue of this Memo. The Chief Engineers, Elecy.,/ Superlntending Engineers are requested to communicate this to all Board employees." (trmphasis Supplied)

16. During the course of arguments, the parties did not dispute that the eligibility for compassionate appointment needs to be dealt with as per the said Memo 8 r.A -r. (sP,J) & RY,J \tr a 269 2025 .1

17. A plrin leading of the Memo makes it <:lea.^ that when an employee ,1it-'s ir-r harness, tvvo years time is allorn',:rl tc the minor dependents frr m the date of death to get appoinl nr e ''rr., provided his claim is r,: qistered u'ithin one year from the cle.te of death of the emplol'ee

18. In the jn itant case, admittedly the Writ Petitjorer's mother preferred .rppl cation u,ithin one year on 22.06.1939. Thus, the requirement r,, preferring application within the sr:ip ulated time u'as satisfiecl tl r-rother of the Writ Petitioner.

19. As per t re stand of the respondents, ',he Wr t Petitioner could not satis iv two aspects on r,r,hich interference is 'varranted. Firstly, it u,as projected that as per the Writ P,:titi,ll-rer in his applicatiorL ciat rcl Nil.August, 2002, he himself merrtiotLe d the date of birth as '.2?, 12.1974. The Mandal Revenue Offi,:r:r'r; Certificate dated Nil.[)ecr: nb,er, 1988 shorn,s that the Wrir- Petitic,ner was 14 years of age in 1988. The Medical Board deterrrrineC the age of the Writ Petiti,rncr- rn the year 2OO9 as 37 years. Thus, L.is year of birth rvill te 1912.If all the three dates are considered one by one, the argum--rr1 ,rf rhe iearned Senior Counsel for tlrr: r espondents was that i r r.ir $. of the three situations, the Writ ])er ilioner was not of I 6 -v <:itrr; oI age at the time of death of hr s fa t're - and could 9 IiACJ (S P.J) & RY,J W a ?69 _2025 not become eligible within two years from the said date. Since the Writ Petitioner was not eligible, the question of his consideration for compassionate appointment does not arise. The second hurdle against the Writ Petitioner as projected by the respondents was on the aspect of delay, which is narrated in arguments and reproduced by us hereinabove.

20. The learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner, on the other hand, submitted that the delay \,VAS properly explained and therefore, the same carnot be an impediment. Both the points are ponderable. The learned Single Judge assigned reasons for interference as under: "4. The respondents have, however, rejected the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds vide letter dated 25. 7O.2O19. The main reason for rejection is that the petitioner was under,aged at the time of death of the employee.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this court to the Memo dated 25.01.20 I 0 issued by the respondents, wherein the report of the Medical Board dated 31.12.2OO9 confirming the candidate's age as 37 years as on 3O.12.2OO9, i.e., as on the date of medical examination, has been taken into consideration and that it was decided to accept the age of the candidate as conhrmed by the Medical Board. It is noticed that the respondents, in the impugned order, however have not given any plausible reason regarding the disagreement with the age determined by the Medical Board. The respondents have taken into consideration, thc age i.e., date of birth as per the MRO certihcate and thus proceeded to reject the petitioner's request for compassionate appoinlment. I 1i r0 lA -r.r (sP,.l) & RY.J Wa 269 2025

6. 'lhis Court hnds that since the:-:r '^'as a discrepiL rr:r rvith regard to the age of thc petitionrr and sincc l-rr: h zrs r-ro t studied more than 7th clasr; :rr-tC . h ,'r'e u,ere no :;chor I cerlificates available, the respondcnLs d,:e mcd it fit anci 1:r ()per to reler the petitioner for medLcai :;lar n nation and havr rs accepted the age as determinect br,- the l4edical Boa-d. :t is not open to the respondents no\,.'l)o l ronsider the rge :'etermination given by the Medical ]foarcl. 7 . '|hc respondents are thereforc d ire :ted Lo reconsiclr'r the case of the petitioncr [or co,npa ssionate appr)intl cnt only in respect of fulhllme nt c f other con<litior s other than the age and i[ ic r lfi s other con(litior s, Lhcn the respondents shall issue nppc in,rtcnt to the pt:trt ioner in any existing vacancy accord :r[ to his qualific:.i, iort and to pass appropriate orders t rr:re lr,r. The enti -e e:< -'rcise shall be completed within a pcl iorl ol three months f -orn the date of receipt of a copy o[ thrs orcl tr." 21 . A mielrte reading of order of the learned Sinp.lc .. uclge shows the reasons lor interference as under: (a) Thr: Medical Board on 31.12.2OO9 opint'rl t,.rrrt the Writ Petitioner':; ag,: is 37 years as on 30.12.2OO9, u'hich u as accepted b1r the Dirr:c[or , b,ut while reversing the said repoi-j , tl e Managing Director htrs nr t eLssigned any reasons; (b) Thc respondents have erred in ti r}:ing into considerat on t ne age mentioned in the Mandal Rt'r er l e Officer's certificate; a1^r(l (.) Thc respondents themselves rt:ferrcd the Writ Petitioner for mr:dical examination and accepte,c L e age as determinecl irr th e Medical Board. Thus, it i s n, )1 ( p en to the / IiACJ (S P,J) & RY,J Wa 269 2025 respondents not to consider the age assessed by the Medical Board.

22. It is noteworthy that learned Single Judge has not considered the aspect of delay.

23. As noticed above, this is the second visit of the Writ Petitioner to this Court. In previous round of litigation 1n W.P.No.745 of 2012, the impugned order therein dated

15.O9.2O11 was set aside solely on the ground that it was non- speaking ald cryptic order ald hence, a fresh order was directed to be passed. Thereafter, the respondents passed the impugned order of rejection dated 25.1O.2019

24. In view of rival contentions, there are tv",o facets highlighted in this matter. First relates to impact of delay 1n seeking compassionate appointment and in approaching this Court. Second is about the reliability of the document which can be determinative for the purpose of ascertaining the date of birth/age of the Writ Petitioner. We deem it proper to deal with the aspect of delay hrst. ) II.r(J(SP..l)&RY,J \\ia 269 2025 \i \

25. In Hary:rna State Electricity Board v. HakimL Singhs, the Apex Court h c ld as under: "...Th,:rr:1ilr', this Court held that it would not l,'e ]L stified in for the claimants the rorn on clirectinq ;eppointment comprssioratc grounds, fourteen years after the c[ea,t]r ol the gover Ml! ! e'mplovee. That such a directron uou lt! a nrount to trea t1 lga c l:rim for compassionate appoin[n $rcrc i.r lrrzL tcr- of inheritance based on a line of sucr:es s on." Lent a s; L

26. In State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Sajad Ahmed Mira, the Apex Court ht ld that granting compassionate app,oin rtent after a lapse of cons iderable amount of time a-fter- tl-,e r.e ath of the government er eployee, would not be in furtherance of the object of a scheme for c ompassionate appointment 27 . In State of U.P. v. Paras Naths, the .Ape.< C rrrrt held as under: " tJ. \\'e rnr r, this Clo'.rrt r n [(199:;l {] Sl r,lppoi rLLrr' r t lweltli_Xti I S o bscrre,:1. i;r this connection, refer to only onc jucgmenI of the case of Union of India v. Bhagwa.n Singh :C 4761. In this case, the app ici rtion for on similar compassionate gror-rnds u,tr; made after the railr,l,a.,. servant's detrth. 'lt i:; Court 'Tht rc:r: cn for making compassionate appointmcnt u hich is excr-'p1ior:Ll, is to provide immediate financial assistzrnce to the famiry of a government servant who dies in harnrsr , rvhen thcrr: rs r o r,ther earning member in the family.' 7 seventeen I{p' such considerations would normally operate overnment ars after the death of the (r997)8 S(( tlj {1006) 5 S(( 16,, r 1998) I S( ( lL- l ] r rACJ (SP,J) & RY,J Wa 269 2025 servant. The High Court was, therefore, not right in granting any relief to the respondents.' (Emphasis Supplied)

28. Similar view was taken by Madhya Pradesh High Court in Riazuddin Khan v. State of M.P.6 and opined as under: "...The very object of appointment of dependent o[ deceased employee who died in harness is to relieve immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the lamily and such a consideration cannot be kept pending for years."

29. ln Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.Pz, the Apex Court held as under: " 12. Thc reouest for appointment on comoassionate srounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of the death of the bread earner of the familv. inasmuch as the very DurDose of sivins such beneht is to make hnancial help available to the family to overcome sudden economrc cnsls occurrinq in the familv of the deceased vvho has died in harness. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in government scrvice. (trmphasis Supplied)

30. A Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Managing Director, Madhya Pradesh Paschim Ksetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. v. Ashiq Shah8, while dealing with the aspect of delay in approaching the Court for grant of compassionate appointment, held that no directions could have been issued for consideration ---, u (2005) 4 MPLJ 575 '(zooq) e scc ae t ' w.A.No.l0 of 2020, dated 07.06.2021 . : \l\ l t.+ rIA 3 r (sP.J) & RY,J \\1a 269 2025 on comparisior at. ground after almost 24 years from :he date of death of empl(,\'ee - The very purpose of grant ol ,to,npassionate appointm€n1 rr-iil be defeated if claims of ,lornpassionate appointmer-rt :r tei decades are entertained.

31. The pet:rior-rer's father died in 1988. Altlrou;y'r the Writ Petitioner'ri rn,:th,:r preferred an application imme,iiat:ly after the death of tl-rc i a ther for compassionate appoilrtm,rlt c f the Writ Petitioner, a ft.: r iittaining majority, no appliczition 'ii, r.r; preferred for gralt of ccrrnpassionate appointment by th<: W:-1: I'etitioner till 2002

32. Putting ,t differently, in the year 1990 '.r'hen the Writ Petitioner attir ned majority, he should have prorr pt ll preferred the applir:atr r> -r lor considering his case for <:ot n passionate appointmer-rt . lhough it is true that his brothe'r. v LLo ra as born to another r,i,ifr: r f 'Writ Petitioner's father, filed a .rt:tit-i,tn. it was ultimatelr' cilr re to be dismissed for want of 1>r'osecution Horvever, ;-ro ir terim relief was granted in thr: sairl lrtrtition and nothing pr erc r tel i tl1e Writ Petitioner from lorlging h is, claim for compasslonatc appointment upon attaining maroritv l5 IIACJ (SP.J) & tiY..r Wa 169_1015

33. As rightly pointed out, if bread winner/employee dies 1n harness, the basic purpose of granting compassionate appointment is to immediately provide livelihood to th e dependants. There are no justihable reasons for the Writ Petitioner for not approaching the respondents Department till 2OO2 and this Court till 2Ol2 34 . In the year 2OO2, the Writ Petitioner's mother preferred a representation for grant of compassionate appointment and the respondents then sent the matter for age determination of the Writ Petitioner to the medical board. The first rejection order u,as passed on i5.09.201 1 which was set aside on O3.O9.2O 19 in W.P.No.745 of 2OI2. Thus, it is crystal clear that the Writ Petitioner, who attained majority in the year 1990, approached the respondents after 12 years in 2OO2 and this Court for compassionate appointment after 22 years. Thereafter, as noted above, the cryptic rejection order was set aside and fresh consideration was ordered. The ultimate rejection order dated

25.10.2079 is called in question in the Writ Petition. The fact remains that during this time, the period elapsed from the date of attaining majority is about 29 years. Thus, the question is whether in a case of this nature, whether the Writ Petitioner is ' i I l'' 1 t6 II/,CJ (SP,J) & RY,J Wa 269 2025 -t'! \ entitled for cr nsideration for compassionate ap;rcin -rnent. The point is nr m( re res integra. In the above judgmr:rLts irnd Sanjay Kumar v. Sta te of Bihar and Othersg, the Apt:r ( )c,u11 1ootr , similar vir:rn. r'r Sanjay Kumar (supra), the Altex Ctx rt opined as un der: "3. . . . . 'I'1 1. r (iourt has held in a numbet o[ ca ;t:s that comp:rssio ).rtc appointment is intended to enable tle fzrmily of the de ce as :,1 cmployee to tide over sudden crisis t es;u iting due to death r,l ',1'e breadearner who had left the famLl" i r penury and u ithci ir irny means of livciihood. In fact suc-t a view has bcen ,:xDru ssr-'d in the very decision cited by the petrtioner in Director ,r - Flducation Vs. Pushpendra Kumar 11 is also significan, to lrotice that on the date when ther firs,t ql,plication $,as rr!44: rv the petitioner on 02lO6l 1988, the perlti 2rcr r.r'as apoointmor t. 'l'his is a minor rnrl rvas not eligible for concclcd lrv the petitioner. There cannot be res:tva[icn of a vacanql ll1 such time as a peti[ioner becomes a .:nill )r after a numbcr r; I Vcars, o r'ls1()ns. I asis of compassionate appointment isi to sec that Thc v:n' the ia :nilr rr:ts immediate relief. " unless there are some specili -pI (Emphasis l irrpplie d)

35. The Wr-it P,:litioner himself disclosed his ergr: as +4 years in the cause titlr cl the Writ Petition. The Writ Pt:titi,rner did not approach thr respondents and this Court fo- grant of compassionai( appointment within reasonabl(' time upon attaining :na-j,rritv. Merely because lttigation at th,-' inrilance of the Writ Petitior-rcr 's brother viz., Ibrahim was pendin{I, it cannot be said that il is ; j ustifiable reason to ignore tht: eno rrrrous delay of '(:ooo) ; sc t" t.r t7 I IACJ (SP.J) & RY.J Wa 269 20li few decades. Apart from this, in the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra), the Apex Court opined as under: "35. Considering the second question referred to above, in the instance, regarding whether applications lor compassionatc appolntment could be considered after a delay of several years, we are of the wiew that. in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay. either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacv is diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased, may havc changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the government employee. In such circumstances, Courts or other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some other source. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, as noted by this Court in Hakilrr- Singh would arnount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a mattet of inheritance based on a line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the {inancial condition and hardship faced bv the dependents of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the qovernment employee." (trmphasis Supplied) \ {

36. In view of foregoing analysis, in our opinion, the Writ Petitioner does not deserve any right of consideration for compassionate appointment after few decades from the date of attaining ma1orlty. 37 . Since we are not inclined to give our stamp of approval on .- the order of learned Single Judge because of enormous delay l ; I l I I I \--.\\ \ i8 r i\( J (SP.J) & RY.J Wa 269 2025 \ seeking compzl isionate appointment, there is no nee I for us to deal lvith secolr :l 1.lcet.

38. At the cr, rt. ' rf repetition, the Writ Petitioner of majoritl in 9!)0 and approached the respondents in 2002 and this Court for I he first trme in 2012' At this distan':e of time' the very purpo se r ,l :ompassionate appointment ge ts ll-u s [rated' In t 'ai ned the age ' otherrvorrls,:t-hisdistanceoftime,theWr-itI'ct.it:cnerisnot entitlecl tc ge t ar1\' benefit of compassionate app'oin i rlent The learned Single -ludge has erred in interfering w'ttr the 'natter

39. Acccrdin 1ly', the order of the learned liirrgle ' tLdge is set aside and tl'rer \,Vi'it Appeal is allowed There shall be tro order as to costs. Ivli:;':ellaneous petitions pending, if arll' shall stand ciosed t'':['i'fl*lxt?3ttiR--- t I/TRUE COPY// \ S':CT'ON OFFICER to'', The chairrran and Managil,gP'f:lT ' Telangana State Power Generation stet(i )ower Generation ; :t;,!,111";, Hfl+1,i"**Jifit'xi'reransana Ka n rn Ic ar D s'ir c'i I [[i![:i:Ultf leSi[X$,'*'i5#i,ii,t"? 5 OneOCtoSRI G \ 6 Two OD Cr Ptes B TVI., ,N,, 'r/ HIGH COURI DATED:2810412025 JUDGMENT WA.No.269 ttt 2025 C ) \; \ ((\( 18 JUIil 2E Z a I '\'..D*,,,,^ r\:- * TC r.r'-tf a I, B r I t ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOIJT COSTS 1 11 ^) \16 ',fl / I I I I i I 'I l{{