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 pass an order or orders one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus of the second respondent in not considering Petitioners declaring the action illegal and contrary to law, consequently direct the 2nd request as arbitrarY, respondent herein consider their request to appoint on compassionates grounds t.A.NO:1 OF 2022 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 direct the 2ndrespondent consider the petitioners request to appoint them on compassionate grounds immediately, pending disposal of the main writ petition' l.A.NO:2 OF 2022 Petition Under section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to amend the cause title as shown in the affidavit para No.5, otherwise the petitioner will put irreparable loss and injury pending disposal of the main writ petition Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI CHALLARI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3 : GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SMT K.MANASA The Court made the following ORDER HON'BLE MRS. ]USTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITI ON No.19415of 202?. ORDER: Heard Sri Challari Nageswara counsel appearing on behalf of the Rao, learned petitioners and Smt. K.Manasa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2.

2. The Detitio ners a ooroach ed this Court bv filino the resent w rit Detiti n seekin o the Draver as under: ".....to pass an order or orders one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in not considering Petitioners request as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law, consequently direct the 2nd respondent herein consider their request to appoint on compassionates grounds and pass'....."

3. The limited relief sought by the petitioners in the present writ petition is a direction to the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioners, who are employees of respondent No.2, for consideratlon of the cases of children of deceased or retired employees for compassionate appointment by the respondent No.2 management. 2 SN,J W.P.No.19415 2022 j

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a detailed representation dated 15.10.2012 was addressed to the respondents herein and the same had even been acknowledged by the respondents herein, however, no action had been initiated in this regard as on date.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit, particularly in paragraphs 7 and B, submits that respondent No.2 company had discontinued the practice of providing employment on compassionate grounds to the children of deceased or retired employees, and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim such relief as a matter of right. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the limited relief, which the petitioners seek is a direction to the respondents to consider petitioners. representation, dated 15.10.2012 for consideration of the cases oF children of deceased or retired employees of respondent No.2 company for compassionate appointment by the respondents herein.

7.P ERUSED THE REC RD: 3 SN,J W.P.No.19415 2022 // A) co n o the resDo ndent No.2 and IN DA icula r, Da raqraoh Nos. andSa extract ed hereunder: "7. In reply to Para No. 5, it is. submitted that the contentions of the Petitioners that the Respondent Company is appointing persons on compassionate grounds at the time of filing the present Writ Petition are utterly false, baseless and put to strict proof of the same. It is submitted that the Respondent Company in discussion with the elected Union frames the policies to be followed in the appointment of workman's legal heirs on compassionate grounds and is done at the sole discretion of the management and that too in rare cases and only if the legal heir qualifies the requisite educational and physical fitness criteria necessary for emptoyment in the Respondent Company. Only legal heir of a deceased workman can seck appointment in the Respondent Company on compassionate grounds subject to vacancy or opt to claim lump sum amount and the Respondent Company is not under any obligation to provide employment to the legal heirs of the deceased d that workma n. It is further submi ResDondent ComDany had di ntinued the n to e ate a o r I hei 200 ADDointments werem ade. tself andt rom 2OO5 to 20L6 no Hence, 4 SN,J W.P.No.19415 2022 Petitioners cannot claim it as and seek emolov ent i Com anv ou tinq ce m lo from the vear Fu rther. in oast a vested riqht the Resoon ent instan ces of 2016 onwa rds, harness th t too su biect to a vaca ncv. ork en wh die f d R n B. In reply to para Nos. 6 and 7, it is reiterated that the Respondent Company is under no obligation to provide employment on compassionate grounds to the petitioners herein. n of ri h n ot cl s ndent Comoanv had Drovided Res e m lovment as an exceDtion on lnc ertain ca satt he discretion of the manaqe ent wh ere ln the leoal heir had oualified the em Dlovment criteri e ResDo nd e nt Com nv. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the practice of providing employment on compassionate grounds by the Respondent Company stands discontinued and hence, the Petitioners cannot seek the said relief.., D SI n AND CL N

8. A bare perusal of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2, particularly in paragraphs 7 and B, indicates that respondent No.2 5 SN,I W.P.No.19415 2022 discontinued the practice of compassionate appointments to the legal heirs of deceased or retired workers as early as 2005, and no such appointments were made between 2005 and 2016. However, DaraoraohNos.T&8 of the cou nter affidavit indica s that resDond nt No.2 m an r m assionate tn ments b wav of exceDtion in certain cases , at the dis retion of + he ma m n + whe f h le al heir eliqibilitv criteria orescribed bv the comDanv from the vear 2O 1 6 onwards, that too subiect to a vacancv.

9. The object of compassionate appointment is a social security measure to support the family of the deceased government servant, who dies in harness. The aim and object of the policy for compassionate appointment is to provide financial support 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 6 sN,l W.P.No.19415 2022 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 the ground that the same is not feasible without assigning any reasons defeating the very object of the compassionate appointment.

10. In view of the clear admission at paragraph Nos.7 and 8 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent company (referred to and extracted above) that employment was provided as an exception in certain cases at the discretion of the management, where the legal heirs met the employment criteria of the respondent company from the year 2O16 onwards subject to vacancy, this Court opines that the 2nd respondent duly taking into consideration the very object of compassionate appointment as explained at para No.9 of the present judgment, is bound to consider the request of the petitioners to appoant the petitioners on compassionate grounds in the Znd respondent company without any delay and hence, this Court opines that the petitioners are entiiled for grant of the said relief in the present Writ Petition. 7 SN,J W.P.No.19415 2022

11. TAKING INTo coNs DERAT ON: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2, c) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, in particular, paragraph Nos.7 and 8 (referred to and extracted above), d) The fact that the representation of the petitioners, dated 15.1O.2012 had been acknowledged by the respondents, however no action had been initiated in the said regard as put-forth by the petitioners as on date in their representation, dated 1s.10.2012. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the grievance of the forth vide petitioners' petitioner, as put representation dated 15.10.2012 seeking \ I 8 SN,J W.P.No.19415 2022 ) i l consideration of the request of the petitioners to appoint the petitioners on compassionate grounds in the 2nd respondent company without any delay, duly taking into consideration the very object of compassionate appointment, which is mainly intended to provide support to the family that loses an earning member, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and duly communicate the decision on the said representation, dated 15.10.2012 to the petitioner herein. However, there shafl be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/.S. SI KARJUNA RAO NT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \: To

1. The Special Chief Secretary to Government, Labo and, Factories (Labour-ll) Department, Secretariat Hyderabad. SECTION OFFICER u mployment Training , State Of Telangana at

2. The Managing Director, M/s. VST lndustries Limited, Registered Office at Azamabad, Hyderabad.

3. The Presiding'Officer, lndustrial Tribunal -ll, Tanguturi Anajaiah Karmika Samkshema Bhavan, RTC Cross Road, Hyderabad.

4. Two CCs to GP FOR LABOUR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. o'ne cc to sRl CHALLARI NAGESWARA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SItilT K.IVANASA, Advocate (OPUC) 7. Two CD Copies SA BS 1/ I C.C. TODAY q- <,) ,-) (.9 rs6 ); /-j j). HIGH COURT DATED:2310712025 ORDER WP.No.19415 of 2022 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. /a /z< V /? z/13