A. Srikanth v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam l-rimited

Petition under Article 226 oI lhe Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed ther:ewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order in O.A. 5290F 20'17 daled07l03l2019 along with order dated '10/06/2019 in R.A. 52912017 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal , Hyderabad Bench along with Order Nolr.No.TA/STA (R)t13-O72\2OO4 dated 26t05t2017 and L.r.No.E1-104t11112016- 2017121 dated 2210112018 rejecting the claim of the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner has earned less than 55 points and that as per the government instructions the Petitioner cannot be said to be in financial destitutibn and quash and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of lndia and contrary to the facts and assessment of weightage and consequently declare that the Petitioner is entitled for consideration of compassionate appointment in the interest of LUstice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MD KALEEM PASHA, Amicus Curiae Counsel for the Respondents: SRI T.BALA JAYASREE, SC FOR BSNL The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Writ Petition No.23923 of 2O2O ORDER: Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar ShauiLi) Aggrieved by the order, dated I7.O3.2O19, passed in O.A.No.529 of 2Ol7 and also order, dated 10.06.2019 passed in Review Application No.17 of 2OI9 rn O.A.No.529 of 2O\7 by the Centra-l Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal'), the present Writ Petition is filed

2. Heard Sri Mohammad Ka-leem Pasha, Amicus Curiae appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. T. Bala Jayasree, learned Standing Coulsel for BSNL appea-ring for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the petitioner's father who was working as a Line Inspector with the respondents has expired on 29.O3.2OO3. Subsequently, the petitioner has submitted an application seeking for compassionate appointment. Learned counsel further contended that the Divisional Engineer, Sangareddy 2 has submitted a report on the finalcial status of the family of the petitioner vouching for the finalcial distress and recommended his case for compassionate appointment' Learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that

4. the case of the petitioner was considered as per new Policy guidelines for grant of compassionate appointment, which have come into existenc e on 27.06.2007. According to new policy guidelines, a person who secures 55 or more net points will be treated aq eligible for consideration by the corporate ofhce's High Porver Committee ald persons who secure less than 55 points will be treated as non-indigent and their cases will be rejected' S. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that respondent No.2 i.e., Chief General Manager has considered the case of the petitioner as per new policy guidelines ald awarded him 61 weightage points, placing him at SI.No.53 in the waiting list for compassionate appointment. However, the case of the petitioner was not dnsidered for compassionate appointment, even though he ed 61 points. In those circumstances, the petitioner O.A.No.1582 of 2013 before the Tribunal and the J Tribunal vide order, dated 17.O2.2O15 was pleased to dispose of the O.A., directing the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. When the case of the petitioner was not reconsidered, the petitioner was constrained to hle Contempt Case i.e., C.P.No.69 of 2015 before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the. petitioner had challenged the rejection order before the Tribunal by frling O.A.No.529 of 2Ol7 and the Tribunal has dismissed the said O.A. vide order, dated 11.03.2018, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by'the petition er.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the petitioner has hled Review application No.17 of 2019 and the Tribunal has also dismissed the Review application vide order, dated 1O.O6.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the respondents initially declared that the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment, as he has secured 61 points, but later, piaced him in waiting list. Learned counsel further contended that just because the petitioner has frled Contempt Case against the respondents, the respondents 4 had rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not an indigent person ald was not in financial distress ald the petitioner's mother 1S having a house. Learned counsel further contended that in spite of several orders, the case of the petitioner was not considered for compassionate appointment. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by setting aside the order, dated 11.03.2019 passed in O.A.No.529 of 2Ol7; order, dated 10.06.2019 passed in Review appiication No.17 of 2OO9 and also set aside the rejection order, dated

26.O5.2017 and furttier direct the respondents to reconsider the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment and allow the Writ Petition 7 . On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the petitioner is not an indigent person and he is not in financial distress. According to new guidelines for compassionate appointment, the case of the petitioner was examined and was rightly rejected by the respondents. Hence, the Tribunal was justified 1n dismissing the subject O.A. and Review application. & 5

8. Learned Standing Counsel had further contended that the case of the petitioner was examined as per the policy guidelines. The petitioner's mother is having independent house and sons of the deceased employee have got married and their wives are working. Hence, the respondents have rightly rejected the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointed. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

9. 'This Court, having consid.ered. the riaql submissions made bg both the parties, is oJ the uieu that a petttsal of the proceedings, dated

76.77.2OO7, disctoses tho.t the Assistdrrt Director hds tq.ken a d.ecision to refer the rejected. cases to the Circle High Pouer Committee lor te- considerdtion in terans of neu policg guidelines for cornpassionate dppointnent and. in the sa;id rejection list, the respondent is shoun at Sf.JVo.53. Since, the case of the petitioner uas refen'ed to High Pouer Committee for re-consideratioa in terrns of new policg guidelines for compassionate appointment uith weightage points oI 67, the Tribundl ought to hdoe interfered uith the case and set aside the rejection ord.er, dated 26.05.2017. TherefoTe, the respond.ents are directed to re-consid.er the case oJ the petitioner strictlg in qccord.qnce with the neu policg guidelines Jramed for cotnpassion,qte dppointment bg taking into c,ccount the proceedings oJ the Assistant Director, BSNL, A.P.Citcle, Doorsanchar Bhrrarrn, Nampallg Station Road, Hgderabad' dated 75.77.2007 dnd the ttr-- 6 fq.ct thot the petitioner has secured. 67 tnqrks q.s q.gajnst the requirement of 55 marks.'

10. Accordingly, the order, dated 11.03.2019 passed 1n O.A.No.529 of 2017; order dated 10.06.20 19 passed 1n Review application No.17 of 2019 and rejection order, dated

26.05.2017 are set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

11. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, sha-ll stand closed SD/-P. PADMANABHA REDDY DEPUW REGISTRAR Note: That the Paragraph No.9 read in the order dated 21.03.2025 in WP.No.23923 of 2020 is deleted and substituted as per the orders of the Hon'ble court dated 1'1.06.2025 in lA.No.l of 2025. This amended order shall substitute the earlier order which has been dispatched on dt: 10t04t2025. //TRUE COPY// SD/-P. PADMANABHA REDDY REGISTRAR lEPUTY SECTION OFFICER To, '1. The Chairman cum Managing Director, Bharat HarischandraMathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi ar Nigam Limited, Sa 'l 1 0001

2. The Chief General Manager, Telecom, Telangana Telecom Circle. BSNL, Door Sanchar Bhavan, Abids, Hyderabad.

3. The General Manager, Telecom District, Sangareddy, Ivledak District. 4. One CC to SRI MD KALEEM PASHA, Amicus Curiae. [OpUC] 5. One CC to SRI T.BALA JAYASREE, SC FOR BSNL. [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies. BSK BS W J R lFie S la T r\t ? 3 JUL 2025 : /i:,TlHi.' o -)- * HIGH COURT DATED:21 10312025 1110612025 AMENDED ORDER WP.No.23923 ot 2020 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS