High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. ffi"tHiS,"J l:'#t#5i [i3:?:B:!* bv its Principar secretary, rransport u n a r rm a n c u m Ma n a g i n g O i re cto r, A';Jb h*r"u, n,.=nf,r. n

2. Telangana State Road l*:pqrt Corporation, Represented by its Vice ' ffi #Hr"&' [Y;,:i: r: J:J:s : il;r:Ef"" F", d rra n s po rt co rpo ratio n, 4. The Depot lManager, Hyderabad-ll Bus Depot, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. 5. Smt. Etukala Kummari L " " ra b a d, H yd e ra ba d. o cc : H o u s eiuiE, nrJt i o:_fi ?, ""Iigii!!U il,:# A cotony Road, Tirumatagirr earanafjr Ma-,ioli,i_ii8la,oao_soo o+z g:gX ilT l,fffi 1h,,, ..RESPONDENTS under Articte 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the ^,__, , lu,,r,on crrcumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particurarry in the nature of writ of Mandamus decrbring the in-action of the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 for considering the representation of petitioner date 04-05-2022 is iregar, arbitrary, unjust and vioration of articre 14,20,21 0f the constitution of India and arso against the principres of naturar justice and consequenry directing the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider the name of petitioner for appointing her in Respondent No.1 )onr:lrl-rsation appointment in the place of her dr':ceased father corporation for Late Meenaiah IA NO| 10F 202 ? Petition und€rr liection 151 CPC praying that in the circuntstrlnces stated in the affidavit filed r sLrp'port of the petitlon' the High Court may cr: preased to direct theRespondentNc:''o4nottoissueanyappointmentlettero'rF::espondentNo' 5 pending disposal ri the Writ Petition' Counsel for the Petirtioner: SRI GEDDADA SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No'1: GP FOR TRANSPORT Counsel for the Respondent Nos'2 to 4: SRI R' ANURAG' SC FO[t TGRTC Counsel for the Re spondent No'5: SRI E' SRINIVASULU The Court made th e following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUR.EPALLI NANDA RI P IT ON o 5 oF2 ORD ER: Heard Sri Geddada Srinivas, tearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Transport appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counse! for TGRTC appearing on beharf of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Sri E.Srinivasulu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5.

2.7 e u n der: ch d eC a ...to issue an order or direction more pa rticu la rly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the in_action of the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 'for considering the representation of petitioner date: O4_OS_2022 is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of article 14, 20,21 of the constitution of India and also against the principles.of natural justice and consequenfly directing the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider the name of petitioner for appointing her in Respondent No.1 corporation for compensation appointment in the place of her deceased father Late Meenaiah and pass such other order or orders 2 SN,J \vt 30508_2022 as tlte l-l ln'ble court may deem fit and prc'per in the circumst; nce of the case....." Thr: ca:,e of the petitioner, in brief, as per tle averments 3. made by th(r petitioner in the affidavit filed by the: 6retitioner in support of tttr: lresent Writ Petition, is that she is tf e Jaughter of the late lrlee:raiah, who worked aS a driver in Fi.esporldent No.2 Corporati,cn at Respondent No' 4 Depot and pas'sed away on 14.08.20 18. 'l-he petitioner, having completed her 1()th class' is qualified for r.crmpassionate appointment' Howe\/er' h er'sister' E' Logitha, app i()d for the appointment without the petitioner's consent or rrr:-lbjection affidavit, despite the petitione.'s eligibility' On 04.05.2.0 22, the petitioner submitted a reprer';entation to Respondent [io. 4, seeking consideration of her application for compassiona':() appointment' Despite sutrmi[ting several representatic ns, Respondents Nos' 2 to 4 have neiiht':r responded to nor rejected the petitioner's request, while Res;pc:ndent No' 5 continues tr pursue the appointment' Aggrieved b1' t\e same' the petitioner l-ar; filed the present writ petition' DIscus SI 9.NA NDCONCLUS IO N:-

4.Thelirnitedretiefassoughtforbythepetitionerinthe present rivrit petition is a direction to the respo'ndent Nos'2 -v 3 SN,J wp_30508 2022 to 4 to consader the grievance of the petitioner as put forth vide petitioner,s representation dated 04.05 .2022. 5' It is the specific case of the petitioner that the unofficial Respondent No. 5, who is the petitioner,s sister, applied for compassionate appointment by suppressing the true facts and without enclosing no_objection affidavit, despite the petitioner,s representations to the official respondents, the grievance of the petitioner as put-forth vide the said representations had not been considered by the respondents as on date. The petitioner had not issued any no_objection certificate for g ra ntin g compassionate appointment to Respondent No. 5. However, the official Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 granted compassionate appointment to Respondent No. 5 without the knowledge or consent of the petitioner, though the petitioner,s name is also included in the family member certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Chityala and though the petitioner is also the daughter of the late Meenaiah, who was working as a driver and had passed away on 14.08.2018 while in service. 6 Despite petitioner,s representation, dated 04.05.2022, which was acknowledged by the oFfice of Respondent No.2 in May 2022, no action had been taken to address or inquire into the 4 SN,J .\,p .30508 2022 petitioner's; qricvance raised against Respondent flo 5 n the said representatior :ill as on date' \ behalf oft e a DOea rl nq

7. teer.]l.Ed resDondent No.5 and also the !ea rned stand rnq Co 4-behalf of the respondent Nos'2-to 4 submit a o that the JrT-$- petition could be disoosed of dlLeXlES-lXC rlevance of no ( r n id t 4he in r resDo nt No 1 r's re r e t- h vid r the etitior te dated O4.OL. 2 22 ln ccord nce to law in co n the orincioig.S of natural iustice within a reasona Cllvl nq it reasona ble oDDo rtunitv to bo h the t f r oerl od petitioner a da !so th e-. rcs@ nie ]tt--N-o.-5 . I a rne does not d O.-counser apoearinq s b is te th s nse! AD earlnq on N os. 2to4

9. Takirgl IN c ns e !!he petitioner n a b eha!fo fth e he learned t s a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case' b) Thre submissions made by the learned counsel aprpearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned i / 5 "-3oso8 2silj Government Pleader for Transport e respondent No.l, TGRT. appearing olearned "pp."rinS on behalf of th standing Counsel for n behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the c) The contents of the petitione 04.OS. ZO22 acknowtedged herein, respondent No.5, r's representation by the respondent No.3 d) The fact that no orders had been passed on the representation of the petitioner dated O4.O5.2022 as on date, f I The Writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.3 to consider the grievance of the petitioner for providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner as put forth vide petitioner,s representation dated O4.O5.2O22 and further to consider the request of the petitioner pertaining to conduct of an enguiry in providing compassionate appointment to the respondent No.5 herein behind the back of the petitioner without issu,", ,"a,.11, the petitioner, without obtaining petitioner,s no objection certificate without obtaining petitioner,s prior consent for Providing compassionate appointment to the respondent ( 6 SN,J \. P \0508- 2022 No.5 herein 'arithin a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance to law in conformity rrvith the principles of natural iustice by giving an opporturrity of personal hearing to both the petitioner tdent No'5 herein and duly crlnrmunicate and also tht: resPor the decision on the petitioner's representiatiLon dated o4.os.2o22tothepetitionerandrespondentNtl.5herein. However,, there shall be no order as to costs' Asa:reluel,themiscellaneouspetitions'fary'pendingin the Writ petiticn shall also stand closed' \ To, //TRUE CoPY// ,.r.]il-^*"8'l[i[XA I /' S[:CTION OFFrcER Telangana t'1'rderabad'

1. The Prircitrra Secretary, Transport Department' Secn:tariat' The State of 2. The Vice C;iil rman cum Managing Director' Telangana rltarte Road Transport ' 3. The Regio nz, I tl4anager, Telangana State Road Trans;por C'lrporation' coiplr,riiotr, Elus Bhavan, Musheerabad' Hyderabad Ranga't.'0,1, Flegion, M G'B'S ' Hyderabao'

4. The Depol l\/lanager, Hyderabad-ll Bus Depot' Dilsukhnaga'' Hyderabad' 5. One CC tc l;ri Geddada Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC 6. Two CCs 1o (lP for Transport, High Court for the St;rte cf Telangana' at .OUTI 7

8. o TJ GJP Hyderabarl one CC t,r Il. Anurag, SC for TGRTCIOPUC] one cc tc -<irr E. Srinivasulu, Advocate[OpUC] Two Cf) Q11p i615 (# HIGH COUR CC TODAY DATED:24104,t2025 ORDER WP.No.30508 of 2022 -.-= ri Y E STAT €' lt- /.., Ir v ;tt?5 lt ': / -l I :r i,)r;l',' \. r DISPOSINCi OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS A 6 y); 4