P. Kavita , Kavita Avote, Wo. P. Sachin Madhukar v. 1. Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Suppty and Sewer?-ge Bo-ard. (HMWS fld

The case of the petitioner, in brief is that the mother of 3 the petitioner bY name Smt. Susheela Bai $/as working as GPE (P&A) in respondent No'1 Department since 12'03'1988 and petitioner's mother had died on 10'03'2017 while in service' leaving behind her children the petitioner herein' Archana Rauth' Vandana Apar, Saritha Pandi and Ajay Kumar Avote as her legal heirs. The petitioner got married on 10'02'2004 and her sisters also got married and settled in Maharastra State' The petitioner made an application to the respondent No'l to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds in any suitable position in HMWS & SB. But the respondent No'1 had rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is married and is not dependent on her mother vide its order dated 20'03'2004' Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the Present writ Petition ' 4 P s E E R (A) T e im uq ed o 4L c 2 18 5 o d n n o 1a r M 6l t,lfFfk deM mo N o. v edi nos o o 2 18i h u f h e d I *-ri*{ ,l I I I 3 SN, J \irP (i504 2021 I.IYDERABAD 4ETROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY & SEWERI\GE BOARD Mem o No: 4L,Al clt 201a/s 630 OFFICE OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KHAIRATABAD, HYDEIIABAD-O4. _Dt i_ rl-o9- 201a Sub: l{l'tWS&SB-Estt -Subordinate Service _ Srnt. Sr sheela Bai. GPE(P&" I expired while in service on 10.03.2012, Appointment to or.c c ' t.he dependent of the deceased employee_Rr,g ' In th( -€ Rol': . ) :iv1(E) O&M.Divn-1, Lr.No. t223, Dt:14.05.2(riB. ;t) :,v1(E) o&M Divn-t, 1r.No.689, Dt: 12.0::.,10 8. I ) 'lemo No.406/10/A.1/Admin.tll2004, Dt : 20.03.2004. In tl-e ( ference 1.t cited, the General Managr:r(Ergg) O&M. Djvnll ha: r r.\' rrded apptication of Smt.p.Kavitha, (tvirriec )-jaughter of (Late) :; r t:,susheela Bai, GpE(p&A) foi appi)rn.:ment on compassion I -e (..ounds. The (i:r " -al lvl;:nager (Engg) O&M.Divn_1 ir thr: relerence 2n,l cited has als: rrrned to-Smt.p.(avitfra, (Narried) daugl.rte- of (t_ate) Smt.Susheelir I;i, GpE(p&A) that her a pptica tion for. aplroirtment ori compassron,tl(: :;r'ounds cannor: be considered as per lules once marriage jl; ":rformed a daughter is not depend€1n,. on her mother/falh e , en she or her husbanC are r.rnemployed ',,rerice 3'd cited r-he Government has clar.if iec, that once marriage is pe 1 :)r-med, a marr.ieC claugl]ter is not depend(,nt on her father/moth3- ,,,en if she is un.ernpioyee or. hcr hrsbard is un_ employee l, n : i-ried daughter is dependent on her fai!,rer mother if she is living r'r r her father mother when her husband d 3s(,rrs her or d,isappears :c r i:ars together or dies. Irr such casr:s thrr liusband should not I : v eft any property/income to his wiie arrd tre rnaraed !aughter is !)(lry dependent on the support p[ovi]e(l by her father/mothr:r I - rj is an un-employee. T_here''c 11 , the ,:equ,est of Smt.p.Kavitha, (Marrierl) daughter of .. (Late).Smt Sir s :c.la Bai, GpE(p&A) for appointment on {tcml)assionate grounds canltt )e considered as per rules and the Genr:r.a ivlanager (Engg) o&t'i,l)i .r is herewith insiructed to inforrn thi: inr ividuar.to opt any othe:r <:,pendents of the deceased empioyee for ap,)ointment on compassi!)r'te . t grounds as per eligibrlity. Encl: As abor/€ . . chref Gencrat ,rr.n::loiil To The General ua .gei (Engg) 0&M. Divn - 1 HMWS&SB 4 SN, J wP 6504 2023 (B) De n rt cat sue b he Taha it ar Ba e a Dis t itio rh extracted hereunder: "GOVERNMENT OF TELANGANA REVENUE DEPARI'MENT OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR BANDLAGUDA MANDAL No, D/8s/2018 .DEPE NDANT CERTIFI CATE" Dated : 20.04.2018 It is to certify that Smt P' Kavitha. R/o H No' 18-7 -4551t45 Patel Nagar, Lalithabagh, Hyderabad is totally dependent on her mother late Smt. Susheela Bai. ' Sd/-xxx Tahsildar Bandlaguda Mandal To Smt. P. Kavitha, R/o. H.No. 18-7 -4551 1'45, Patel Nagar, Lalithabagh, Hyderabad". (c) N b A a d 1 o .20 7 extracte d hereund er: ! 1) 3) 4) Hy B FI TI VI W/o. Digambar Rauth, aged: 46 yrs', R/o' Archana Rauth, Aurangabad, W/o. Devidas Apar. aged 41 yrs', R/o' Vandana APar, Aurangabad,. siiitr,.-p"nait, W/o. Dilip Pandit, aged: 32yrs" R/o Aurangabad yrs., R/o. Ajay Kumar Avote, S/o' Ramchand.er'- 1911, '9 follows: O"rataO, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oatn as i j I I i I I I I I t 1j ; r'l 5 SN, J \['P 6504 2023

1. That ivr with the fact; ,rre the deponents herein and as such w3ll acquainted 'this affidavit. that our mother SUSHEELA BAI W/o. Late Ramchander n HMWSSB. Hyderabad and she died or 1l-03-2017. the above mentioned persons along \vitr KAViTHA legal heirs of Susheela Bai.

2. We su)l WaS em p lO,rr:e After deati r PANDIT are th 3. We fu, th ' submit that our sister KAVITHA PA|.JDIT is eligible person on r:c n passionate grounds appointment. As such wr, the above mentioned pei ;lrns give this No-Objection Affidavit wil h frr:e will and without an\/ ,: r )Tcion. The said contents are true and r;or-ect to the best of our kn, r,iledge and belief. if any facts found inccrrecr. we will be held Hence tri No-objection is jointly executed. Sworn and s q r'rd before me on this the 16th c r,' of May, 2Ol7 at Hyderabad. 1 2_ 3 4 XXX XXX XXX (D) t:( unter affidavit ha been filed on behalf of the resDond e ts in Darticular Dara Nos.1O and extracted _hJ,Je u nder: "10. I para 2 Su hee a (P&A) n was al Comrnis com p a 5;1 u nde - N on tran: Corpor a with r;la to this B r w, it is submitted to the averments ma<le under i the petitioner's affidavit that it is fact tha. Smt 3ai while working as General Purpose Frnl,ley6g r,; expired on 10-03-2017. It is alsc iact thi,rt she l),linted as Women Mazdoor by ll- e then rtner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderaba:i, on ,nate grounds and posted to Drainaec t,n. JJ L nicipal Corporation of l-.{yderabad. Suhseq tently r'rr of Sewerage systern from the therr t4urricipal rn of Hyderabad to this respondent Board alorrg ' tiie mothe!- of the petitioner was alsc trans[erred rard. 11, Ij. is f Llrther submitted that the petitioner un(ie r Iara 4 of her ir f davit has submitted that she has llot rn;rrr ed to : I 6 SN, J wP 6504 2023 one P. Sachin Madhukar on 10'02-2004 and her other three (3) sisters lvere also got married and after their marriage they have settled in the state of Maharastra' But u. pei the family members certificate issued on 04-05- 201.7 by the Thasildar, Bandlaguda Mandal, the petitioner has a brother and he is working in the state Government as Police Constable. She has intentionally suppresseC the said fact with an intention to get the favorable orders of this Hon'ble Court to consider her case for appointment on compassionate grounds since as per the orders .of the Government issued in G.o. Ms No' 687 GA (Ser'A) Department dt:03.10.1977 the candidate is eligible for appointment under the compassionate scheme shall be the spouse of the deceased Government servant or the dependent children of deceased Government servant who died in harness, there being no other earning member in the family. Whereas, the brother of the petitioner herein is working as Police Constable in Police Department under the Government of Telangana and as such the petitioner is not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. on this faci alone as per the G.O.Ms.No. 687 GA (Ser'A) dated 03.to.t977". NA ON SIO

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 04'09'2018 rejecting the request of the petitioner on compassionate grounds as a dependant of the deceased employee on the ground that once marriage is performed, a daughter is not dependent on her father/mother even she or her husband are un-employed' The impugned order of the 1't respondent further indicates the reasoning that a married daughter is dependent on her father/ mother if she is living with her father/mother when her husband .:.:a:*rtt 7 SN, J \!'P 6504 2023 deserts h€:r ' disappears for years together or rlies In such cases, the hL s,band should not have left any properlylincome to his wife arc1 the married daughter is solely depend€nt on the support prtvi 1r.:d by her father/mother and is an un_r_,n]pl6y6s.

6. The l<:a 'red counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further su trrn :s that the order impugned dated 04.09 2018 had been passr:,J considerinc I provided fcr dependants; : tota lly ig n ore favour bv :he

20.04.201t . Detitioner's',1 deceased e r,-echanically without application of Inin(:1, without - e case of the petitioner as per ._ht, scheme rppointment on compassionate groL ncrs to the 'tire deceased employee and the 1.r rt.spondent Jthe dependant certificate lssued in p:ltitioner,s ''ahsildar, Bandlaguda, Hyderabaci t)ist ict dated 'd also the No Objection Certificatt: ssued in ,:rur dated 16.A5.2_017 by all the childr,:n of the t oloyee expressing their lryillinrlnr:ss for compassionat( appointment being provided lo ilrr: r)elitioner herein. Bai n counsel a p frit,a writ petitior ri t on the above referred submissions th, I learned 'ng on behalf of the petitioner contends that the :.to be allo\rued as prayed for. ..i;*&!tX:,.: r 8 SN, J wP 6504 2021

7. The learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sev,rerage Board (HMWS & SB) appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 mainly put forth the following submissions. The petitioner is a married daughter and therefore she is not a dependant on the deceased employee' The brother of the petitioner had been appointed as a Constable and therefore, the petitioner cannot be provided with employment' The certificate issued in favour of the petitioner is that of Tahsildar and not that of Revenue Divisional Officer' The petitioner is living with her husband and two children and therefore she cannot be termed as dependant on her mother' As per the Memo dated 20.03.2024 issued by the Government once marriage is performed, a married daughter is not dependent on her father/ mother even if she is un-employee or her husband is unemployee. A married daughter is dependent on her father/ mother if she is living with her father/mother when her husband deserts her or disappears for years together or dies'

8. Basing on the aforesaid submissions and the averments madeinthecounteraffidavitfiledonbehalfofrespondents'the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contends that the writ petition has to be dismissed in limini' : ;:x 9 SN, J \\'P 6504 2023

9. The k:a places re liir n ( dated 05.06.. ALD On ine .t (referred t6o '^ed counsel appearing on behalF of the petitioner : on the judgment of Division Bench of ihis Court rrlB passed in W.P. No. 41931 of ZOi,' llported in It9 (3) ALD 338 (DB) in particular par,l t,tos.S to B Jnd extracted above), in support of petitioner,s case and l:; rned Standing Counsel appearing o.r behalf of respondent N :,;.1 and 2 p laces relia nce on the iu dcl ment of the Apex Cor rrt of India dated 28.O2.19 94 betw een LIC Vs Asha Ra andra Ambekar Equivalent citatio n s; L994 AIR 2148 !13 a rti ular oar Nos.7 a nd 8.

10. in vil // :rf the fact that counter refers to lllerno dDted 20.O3.20)-4, i lare perusal of the saicl Memc No.,tO,i/tO/A.t/ Admn.IIi:20C.+ Dt 20.03.2004 indicates that it is ctear that there are three pr:-.:rnditions for getting compassionate epr)ointment especiallv, rvh' r the applicant is a married daughter. -[.liey are as u n der: ':i there should be no younger or older un-nan iecJ depr:n J,tr :; in the l'amily and the gpouse shlr-rJd be unw t,i1; netigible for appointment. (ii; t'1'," married daughter should be depenrJant on her f ai - er/mother who was a Gove rn m,lnt Emplorrr:e Jeceased Government employee. . ., -:,'-,... ...{.!rrt'lr},5 lt, r:: - f 10 SN, J wP 6504 2023 (iii) There is no objection to consider one of the married daughters if there are more than one married daughters as long as the condition Nos.1 and 2 are fulfilled. "

11. The material on record clearly indicates a certificate issued in favour of the petitaoner by the Tahsildar dated 20.O4.2Otg certifying that the petitioner as totally dependent on her mother Smt.Susheela Bai. The material on record also indicates that no objection affidavit dated 76.05.20L7 with all the particulars had been furnished to the respondents indicating the willingness of other family members for providing employment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds as dependant of the deceased employee. The grounds put forth by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents are not indicated in the impugned order dated 04'09.2018 passed by the 1't respondent and the effort is made to improve the case of the respondents through the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents which is not permissible under law. The pre- conditions as per the Memo dated 2O.03.2OO4 had not been examined admittedly by the 1"t respondent herein I 1I SN, J \lP 6504 2023 applying to the case of the petitioner in particular by verifying th : supportive documents of the petitioner and mechanicall t, unilaterally, the case of the petitioner had been rejected stating that the petitionei is not dr:pendant of the decela sed employee since the petitioner is rr married daughter a,rd living with her husband ancl has two children arrc therefore, the petitioner cannot be,termed as rn her deceased mother. This Corurt opines dependant ' that the seri l reason is contrary to the Scheme itself and also the ob servations of the Division Bench Judgment referred to e nd extracted abovef this Court opinesi that the petitioner is entitled for examination of petition,er's case as per the Memo No.4O6l1OlA.1/ Admn.It/2tOO4, Dt 2O,O3.2OOZ! dr.rly taking into consideratio:r of the documents : upported by the petitioner in support of the petitioner':; case indicating that the petitior.Der is a dependant o' the deceased ernployee.

12. This (lr rlrt opines that the judgn'rents relied on by the learnecl itanding Counsel for Hyderatrad Metropolitan Water Strpgrly and Sewerage Board (HMVVS & SB) .r 1 r t2 SN, J wP 6504 2023 (" appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.l and 2, do not apply to the case of the petitioner.

13. The object of compassionate appointment is a social security measure to support the family of the deceased government servant, who dies in hbrness. The aim and object of the policy tor compassionate appointment is to provide financial suppoft to the family of the deceased employee, who left the dependents in distress and penury. The core aim of the object of providing compassionate appointment is to relieve the family from financial sufferings being faced for the sudden demise of the Bread Winner of the family. The sufferings being faced by the dependents of the deceased employee for sudden demise of the Bread Winner could be solved for some extent by providing compassionate appointment to one of the dependents of the deceased employee to look after the family. The said relief should not be denied on flimsy grounds defeating the very object of the compassionate appointment. L4. In N. Uma vs. The Dire r of Elementarv School Education & others, Writ Petition No. 25366 of 2OO8, l3 SN. J Wl' {t504 2023 decided on 22.O9.2017, the High Court of Madras has observed ;rr hereunder: '13. r the S;l givirrrl dau()lrt Gov : -r the) sr daurlht of t1 s m ot'r :l action Conr;l it equirlit Gov : -r on :lrr rest -ia:l the above judgments have clearly observed that 'r Government should not discriminate inspite of ::ompassionate appointment to ther sons and -'s of the deceased employee \'/hen the r.ent is giving appointment to the married sons, ruld not deny to give employment 1o the married : -s. But in this case, only on the ground c,f marriage letitioner, who is the daughter of the deceased , is denied by citing marriage as a reason and such rrf th" t,u,. is against the very scherne of the -tion. The preamble of the constitrJ[ion ensures ,ot status and opportunity to all its citizens. The r,'rent should not discriminate or depri\/e to woman ground of marriage, while the sarne is not a rrn in the case of a rnan. r-nittedly, in this case, the deceaseC ern:>loyee has .r_4.,\r diec I ng the course of the employment blr lr:avinE her . ghters viz,, M. Manjula and M. Indr.. Infact, the two rl; l,:ughter of the deceased employer: b,l viz., M. is a mentally retarded person and this petitioner, Manirrl l:he second daughter of the deceasr:d emplcyee vlho is t.ake care of the first daughter, i:)u':, without shoulal r ing all the above Government Orderr,; and the cons i J( rrts of this Cour.t passed in the above /vr t petitions judg rr r : pathetic condition of the petitioner's l'amily, the and th j,:nt mechanically passed the present lmpuoned respcn atdqr hy statins that the petitioner is a married woma n and hence she is not entitlecl to the cqml_E S_stonate aDpointmen gain, the 'ri::w of the respcn lent is totally illegal and he had no1 applied his r-F nil rr all the above judgments cited supra, this Court di|er:t e j the Government Authorities to give ernployment to t're rarried daughter without discrim inat.io rr but this resporr Ir::nt purposely rejected the recluest o{'th€r petitioner on the ,:cle ground that she, [s a married dntrghter of the decr c s r 1 employee. ::.i ' ,--..:,;&J;.;,. .i," .t - . .i !!,ttt .*ii*r.:ai Si-:]irc ,- r 14 SN, J wP 6504 2023 ( The relevant portion of the order of this Court dated O5.06.2014 oassed in W.P NO. 41931 OF 2OL7 in particular para Nos. 5 to 8 are extracted hereunder: *5. We have perused the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.16242 of 2013. In the said case, the respondent- applicant was married daughter and she failed to produce any proof to show that she vras staying with the deceased father at the time of his death. Further, the respondent- applicant in the said case was residing in a separate house along with her husband and was eking her livelihood by sewing the garments, and despite that, this Court held as u nder: "Even if the applicant is residing in a separate house that by itself, is not a ground to reject the claim of appointment. So far as the income of the applicant is concerned, it is proved that she is not having any independent income to live on her own and she is also taking care of the mother (widow of the deceased employee). No valid reasons were recorded by the authorities to reject the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment."

6. We further note that in the aforesaid case, the respondent-a pplica nt therein challenged Memo No.406, dated 20.3.2004 based upon the other facts. In the present case, in the report filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on social and economic status of the petitioner, it is specifically stated that the widow of the deceased employee is having three daughters, and all daughters are married, and the petitioner, who is the elder daughter of the deceased employee, along with her husband was staying with the deceased at the time of his death and the other two daughters of the deceased employee were staying with their respective husbands separately. In the said report, it is further stated that the petitioner and her mother are living in the address whereat the deceased used to stay. and that there are no earnlng members in the applicant's family and there are no movable or immovable properties in the name of any of the family members of the applicant and that she has no source of income as the deceased was the sole bread winner of the family, and the social economic status of the applicant is not sound and they are unable to sustain their livelihood in the absence of '; '.& l5 SN, J uP 6i04 2023 the pr r irry bread winner of the family. Reve r r( Divisional Officer recommended petiti r r( r for compassionate appointment. Accorcirrg l''/, the ths 63 5r3 r)f the

7. "\ a ttt h c,r it elig ib le r term:; No 40(;, is c eit. comt es: is a rr rr : note in the rejection order that the respordent- has simply mentioned that the petitiolcr s not tr:)r appointment on compassionate groLlnds in I Government Instructions issued vide: Yemo (iated 20.3.2004. On perusal of the said rne'no/ it i.hat there are three pre-conditions for getting i:rnate appointment especially, when ihe ilplrlicant 't:d daughter. They are as under: "1 ' There should be no younger or older unrna-ried deperl; r'ts in the family and the spouse shoulrl be unwi lln, or ineligible for appointment. (i r The married daughter should be deperclart on f i':her/mother who was a Govern nent he- Emplc y r r,,rdeceased Government emoloyee. (i There is no objection to consider one o' the marr e d ::aughters iF there are more than one rrta rried daughte ' ; as long as tl-re condition Nos.1. and 2 are fu lfill 3 l. In tlr< elder cli husba-r he- T a fa m ili<':; weal'.1-'r' tc) s:i!'y nece i:ie daughte upor ih not r,r\ seco r,J Offic:r', the I -.t alonr; w the cec respori c the pt:ti in te fln )resent case, undisputedly the petition,:r is, the L ghter of the deceased and she along u'itl her i staying at the place of the deceased ev,:n. after rlage. In the society, there are tlvo t/pr,:s of one is wealthy and the . other is pco,-, The reople ask their daughter-s after marriagr: e:ither \ryith them or to stay separately tr1 mi'tking '/ arrangements. In the second categcry the -,: continue to stay with their parents ceDet.tding lir income even after their marriage irlhen thr,ly do : source of income. The present case is o. the :ategory. As stated hy the Revenue llvis;ional :l'e petitioner has been staying with the widr.rw of :ased, and even after marriage, the ocrtit oner th her husband is depending upon the earrrings of rseci. The said fact has not been rebuttec b'/ the :.rts. But the respondents rejected thr: ca:;e of lner on the ground that her case is no: ro\,'ered ,rf [vlemo No.406 dated 20.3.2004, vuh.:reat; the J- ,lt t q I i I .i l6 SN, J wP 6504 2023 r similar issue has been considered by this Court in W.P.No.16242 of 2013 as mentioned above. It pertinent to mention that the learned Counsel for the petitioner before the Tribunal has mentioned about the case of this Court decided in W.P.No.16242 of 20L3, wherein the memo and the social and economic conditions of the respondent-a pplica nt therein were considered by this Court. However, the learned -fribunal. ignored those facts and rejected the application filed by the petitioner herein.

8. We are of the considered view that the case of the petitioner herein is on a better footing than the respondent-a pplica nt in W.P.No.16242 of 2013 and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed in a suitable post on compassionate grounds. The proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 25.1.2017 are set aside. Consequently, the order of the Tribunal dated 1.8.2017 in O.A.No.1771 of 2017 is set aside. We hereby direct the respondents-authorities to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds in a suitable post and issue appointment letter to her, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order".

15. In the iudqment of a Dlvisiol Bench of this Cou!'t in WP.No.16242 of 2013 dated 26.()6.2()1,3. it was held that married dauqhter is entitled for aoDointment on comDassionate qrounds subiect to her elioibilitv.

16. Takinq into consideratiolt: (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, (b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned s.: t7 SN, J \\rP 6504 2023 Standing C >unsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 (c) T re impugned proceedings vide Memo No. NO.411O7C: ,l2OLA/5630, dated 04.09.2018 isstrr::d by the respondent No,1 addressed to the General Manager (ENGG) O[r.M, Divn.-I, HMWS&SB (referred to and extracted a rove) which, as borne on record, does not indicate thre application of mind and indicates passing of the order mechanically, rejecting the requesl of the petitaonel f,rr compassionate appointment as d,r:pendent of the dr:< eased ernployee on the ground that the petitioner is having her husband and two chilciren, (d) D *opendant Certificate issued by the Tarhasildar, Bandlaguda Hyderabad District dated 2O.O4"2OJ.8 to the petitioner hr,rrein (referred to and extracted above), (e) N ] objection Certificate dated L6.O5.2OL7 (referred to and extracted above), (f) -il e observation of the Division Berrcth of this Court yidt-, ils order datecl O5,06.2018 passed in W.P. No. 41931 of ilCn.7.in particular para Nos.5 to 8 (referred to and extrac'te rI above), !t l8 SN, ] wP 6504 2023 (S) Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in particular para Nos.lO and 11 (referred to and extracted above), (h) The contents of the Memo NI.4O6/LO/A.I/ Admn.II/2OO4, Dated 20.A3.2OO4, The writ petition is allowed as prayed for. The order impugned dated O4.09.2O18 passed by the 1st respondent is set aside and the 1't respondent is directed to reconsider the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds as dependant of the deceased employee as per the Memo No. 406/1OlA.LlAdmn.ll/ 2OO4, Dt 2O.O3.2OO4, in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and duly communicate the decision pertaining to the request of the petitioner for appointment as dependant of the deceased employee after due verification of the documents to be furnished by the petitioner and duly communicate the decasion to the 'i .t,".* l9 SN, J \\P 5504 2023 petitioner I erein, However, there shall be no order as to costs. clcsed I I T1€ ^- , :ellaneous applications, pending if an,r, ,;halj stand SD/.P F'ONNA KRISHNA ASSIST,{NT REGIST R R //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 Z J 4 5 The Chief (ier . al Manager ,Hyderabad Metropolitan Waie Supply and scwereoe tl,ra I (HMWS ,;i 3B;, (F;J A)' office of Manag'ng Director' +n: gli:*:ll ;f.":',i$, 3g?3oo?r","nn,n,, Municipar Adn inistration and Hr:E"ltl',j1^gttlm'+mir,."-$'-fi i,isl[]'""."J,ro,,"r Two CD CoPie : BM BS --at:'. -:.i..-' I HIGH COURT DATED:301A4'2025 C;C TODAY ORDER WP.No.6504 of 2023 61 F- irAI6 d 1t' , uti Zffi :t 1.*\: 'sr,, P o + ALLOWTNG .'.HE WRIT PETITION W|THO|JT COST8 )>{- (,,