KonathamSushma v. 1. The state of telangana

Petition under section 1si cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 6.1 .2025 and 11'02 2025 dury taking into consideration of the report of the respondent No. 5 vide No.'13111 B1(01)r2o2s-vand So/GHZ dated j0.06.2025 and provide the employment to the petitioner under the bread winner scheme Counsel for the petitioner: SRt. cUDt MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: AGp FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JI'STICE NAGESH BIIEEMAPAKA WRIT PETI TION No.19682 of o25 2 oRDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: "To direct the respondents to prouid'e tlrc suitable .,ioii,^Z'"i i"der the i'ioa ii""t' scheme uhite considering the reporl i1 ttt''" "tpondent -N^o's :)ide No.Pl/188 (O1)/202s-v &' sotcai dated 1.0'o6'2o25 submitted in pursuance of lhe representations dated OA.OI'ZOZS and I 1'02 2O25" Heard Sri Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy' learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents' 2 l,earned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner 3. is working as out-sourcing attender under the contract basis in Jeedimetla Depot since 17 'I2'2O22' It is contended that the husband of the petitioner Late K' Shyam Sundar Reddy was employed as a perrnanent driver at the Jeedimetla Bus Depot of TSRTC. Unfdrtunately' he passed away on 07'1'O'2O13' while still in service and his untimely demise has left the family of the petitioner in dire finarrcial distress and later tl"e petitioner became the sole breadwinner of her household and following the demise of the petitioner's husband, the petitioner approached respondent 1 . . Z Nos.2 to 4 and submitted a representation requesting compassionate appointment under the Bread Winner Scheme on 13 .06.2o 14 and the respondents issued a carl retter uid.e No.E6, 684 (1)/2014-sR inviting erigible dependents of deceased employees to attend the selection process for the post of Conductor Grade-II, for which the petitioner attended the interview on 27.06.2014 that however the candidature of the petitioner was rejected solely on the grounds of her physical disability, as physically handicapped individuals were deemed ineligibre for the post of Conductor arrd also held that the petitioner completed her intermediate, pursued a computer course, thereby meeting the eligrbility criteria for employment under respondents corporation. Despite the qualifications, the application of the petitioner was rejected and subsequently submitted another representation on 28.06.2O14 seeking reconsideration but even then no action was taken by the then TGSRTC authorities. It is further averred that the petitioner escarated the matter to the Department for welfare of Disabled and Sepior Citizens, Government of Telalgana on 18.11.2025 and the Department issued a letter uid.e Lr.No.C2/1986/2OlS dated 23. 12.2OlS requesting the respondent 3 Nos.2 to 5 to provide the petitioner with suitable emPloYment in with Disabilities (Equat accordance with the Persons Opportunities, Protection of Rights, and Full Participation) Act' 1955 and other applicable government orders' "That regrettably reSpondents did not act on this recommendation as well' It is further submitted that the petitioner frled Writ Petition 4. No.6195 of 2016 before this Court and this Court uide its order dated 26.02.2016, directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation and instructed respondents corporation to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks and that accordingly, the petitioner submitted a fresh representation on 18.03.2016 and despite complying with the directions and submitting repeated representations no action has been taken by the respondents corporation' It is submitted that petitioner visited the office of the respondents but no action was taken, the petitioner again made representations dated O6'01'2025 and. 11.02.2025 to respondent No'2' It is further submitted that respondent No.2 forwarded the same to respondent No'4 uide proceedings No.GC1/ l4O (06ll2O25-PO (T & W) dated 78'02'2025 to send a detailed report in this regard. It is further averred that I I ,l ,i 4 respondent No.4 forwarded the same to the respondent No.S uzde proceeding No.O1l188 (O1)/2O25_JDM dated 25.02.2025 requesting to provide a detailed enqu1ry report regarding her eligibility for compassionate appointment on beha,lf of the late K. Shyam Sundar Reddy; the office of the respondent No.4 also provided the respondent No.5 with a certificate that the petitioner,s performance was satisfactory as out sourcing attender (Contract Basis) and subsequently detailed reports were forwarded within the ofFrce of the respondent No.S urde proceeding No.p1/1gg (Ol)/2O25-V & SO/GHZ dated 10.06.2025, post which no action was taken by the respondents t,l date and the petitioner visited the ofhce of the respondents several times but in vain. 5. It is further submitted that respondent Nos.2 to 5 are not considering the representations dated O6.0i.2025 and 17.O2.2025 of petitioner to pro'u"ide employment under bread winner scheme even though through respondent No.5 submitted the report to respondent No.4 dated lO.06.2O2S, thus prayed to allow this writ pe tition. 6 . On perusal of the record discloses that on f 0.06.2025 respondent No.5 submitted report wherein it has been mentioned 5 that petitioner's performance was satisfactory as outsourclng attender (Contract Basis) and requested respondent No'4 to take further action' Therefore' considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into consideration the it is just and rdport dated \0'06'2025' this Court finds that reasonable to allow the prayer of the petitioner' In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and respondent 7 . No.4 is directed to consider the report submitted by respondent No.5 dated .0'06'2025 d'uly providing employment to petitioner under the Bread Winner Scheme within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order' No costs' Miscellaneous applications' pending if anY, shal1 stand closed. sDI-P. ch' NA8+iHHSffi?A ,/TRUE COPY'/ ' SECff;-r.'"r* To, 1 Bru PVL HIGH COURT DATED:1 OtO7t2O2S ORDER WP.No.19682 of 2OZs t" I i I,.i , 21AlJ8M z c) \ * ts t.,ATCHEo * ALLOWING THE Ud/RIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ ),-.-- 2^