The High Court · 2025

. Heard Sri K. Laxmi Manohar, learned counsef appearing on behalf of petitioner and Sri p.Sri Harsha Reddy, tearned standing counset for SCCL appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2 e o prayer as follows: d "......to issue of a or writ more ou.r?^:,ld:t or orders or direction mandamus d-et]ur,"n?'J::':a'I in - the nature or of the Respondents more particulu.t, l,Ltll-u-ttion ;;;;;;*'tr ResPondent No.4 in issue oF MMR/P_ER/:l);;;)'i!ru1r-,oi",i rr r rl"rrr r, li"; Kespondent No.4 in n< *ffi [:i;,rss,ffi i:ff ?j,r.r:l{# i:jliiij{,i" 5:.,".i:, [i .,kir.'r",,f ;t Kespondent No. 1 companv uno,lJn-Lu.r"rro ,n" lndtng of this Honble :jli? fli':'{jr, :tr ilry'j:,lit ;;'T.h T^+ Respondents -* a# 'fl-^lutition"r against the ir*,lq*,fi ,,g* t *r,'*i'fu r company uno ln ,iL*'"1?I tl" Respondent Aio.1 *r e w. p. rrr o. iz 6 i d' :L f l" J;" il,,".flil B,:,:S,,;- =.? I 2 fileC ty the petitioner against the ResponrJents arc pas;s. .. " It i:; :;rt:cific case of the petitioner that the: ir'tllugned 3. Proceecings Ref No. MMR/PER/L/062/2314''l'2, dated 23.08.20,.13 is;sued by the Respondent No' 4 in not frrlvidlng any apF)ointrnent in any suitable employment to tl'le t etitioner isillegal,lrbitraryunconstitutionalnullandvoidi:ndviolative of the terrts of the Circular No.P.40.52l4,tIR/ LB7'j, dated 05.09.1.9')7' issued by the Respondent No. 1 C':nrp'any and contrary tc, tre finding of this Honble Court rec:rdtrd in the final orde:r (lated 15.11.2022 passed in the W'P No''l'1010 of 2015 fil,:d by the petitioner against the f{esp'ondents' Aggrieverl by the said action of the respcnder:s, the petitioner a1ll>roached this Court by filing this Writ Pe1 ition' THE RD:- A. On a!1- the Co]Irl-ll is dispgse{ ofv de its o er dated 15.11.2 o22_ arnd the releva[t-pa-ra Nos. 2 to 4 are e aDn'roached he same rndgt':- . Lr:arned counsel for the petitioner subrnits l'hat the e1:iti()ner is seeking employment on compassir'rate and elrenclent ground as Circular o.P.1).52l4llRl1875, dated 05.09'199'7 i:'sued by .l [) I'I t respondent No.1 Company. He also further draws the , attention of this Couft to the service register of the deceased Mr.D.Bheemaiah, wherein it is ciearly shown that the date of birth of the petitioner as 16.04.1986. He also draws the attention of this Court to the study certificates of the petitioner enclosed along with the writ petition. He further draws the attention of this Court to the letter written by General Manager to the Deputy General Manager personal dated 18.03.2005, stating that the name of the writ petitioner is being kept in the label register and further submits that when the writ petition was filed his age was 24 now he has crossed 33 years but still awaiting justice from this Court apart from suffering of being unemployed and suffering at the hands of respondent company and therefore seeks this Court's intervention to grant the relief as prayed for.

3. On the other hand, Sri.p.Sri Harsha Reddy, Iearned counsel for respondents submits that the deceased father of the petitioner has stated and disclosed the age of the petitioner was one year in the year 19BB and was expired on 1998 and further contends that in the absence of enrolling the petitioner under live roster the case of the petitioner cannot be considered which is in violation of regulations of respondent company and also draws the attention of this Court to the letter written by the mother of petitioner dated 16.06.2011, wherein she has stated that she belng an uneducated woman and could not incorporate her son,s name in the Live roster for pro.viding dependent employment to her son on his attaining 18 years of age and nobody has informed about the Live Roster at that time. He further contends that this ignorance cannot excused and contends that their case is an admitted fact that the petitioner has not brought his name in Live Roster as prescribed under the Regulations Act. 4 This Court a er co sideri no the rival tention h made out case and baSed uDon facts and clrc mstances of the case, this Court deems it ADDTO Driate t of the wrlt DEtition dispose 4 _] K, - \ to consider the case of direct ino the resoonden th-c-gr_:t itioner in accordan ce with law and in terms of the Circular No.P.4O.5214/lR/L875. dated o5.09. as__pg1' the orocedure laid down bv the reslrondent in l.qur (4) Eo__Etg.f !gse_k!L from the date of receipt of copv (rf this [ini] B I'he impuqned _jrocer:dinqs Ref.No .MMR PER passed--bJ-L L 2 2 4 L2 23 08.2023 r.grder:- 2 Ycnt have filed WP No. 22OtO of 2015 be forer llon'ble H gh rCourt of Telangana seeking to issue an apl)ropriate writ, orrler or direction particularly one in tle nature of W ri1. c,f Mandamus declaring the acticn of :i(lCL In issuing MMR/PER/L/062/t61757, Dt. 31.01.2016, letter vider, IIEMMR in denying claim to provide Ref. lrlo any suitable employment as illegal, ; rltitrary, unc,ln:;titutional null and void and the contrary to the te rnrs of the circular No. P 40 5214/lRt/78-]5,, )td 5-9- 1')97, issued by SCCL company and consequenl.ll, direct tl'e SC C L to provide any suitable employme'nt t c you in terns of the Circular No P 40 5214/LR,/7Bt/5,, )1:d 5-9- 1')97, issued by SCCL company and allow tlre a rove WP N ) ,22101 0 of 2015 filed by you. 2 fhr: above Writ Petition was disposec of ry the Hrn'bl,r High Court vide its orders dated. 75.t7.2022 directin() the SCCL to consider the case in acr.crdance witl la w and in terms of the circular Nc,. P 40 5)-74/lR/7875, Dt 5-9-1997, and in terms of d€pendent eligibil t'/ as per the procedure laid down by t.rr: SCCL c()rrp,3ny with prospective effect, within four (z ) weeks frrnr tlrr: date of receipt of copy of this order. J 5 o "? suitable "rr,"r#rl3ur %1"?i: ? fl #.# ts, : t..%H,#

3. In compliance with orA^- a^.^ - - t I;,T #H 1: pt:+.f{,jl i,ij"s,.lil} ;11: i,:i:: T issue regarding providing any p o o s i t ii i;l i';; r:'?, J.",, i iXTr: "*m.d;;;, :i:l company has been examrned. 4. In this connection, it is to inForm that: l:. Ygu. father Sri Derisetti Bheemaiah_ F. t4 11; e"e i,' ;i !1 l;,ii; fi i;Y3 3,?., i iJJ [? " ; l;rutilx llil,! ';t .-Jr:}il, ii. After the deatt sneemaiah,";#'";'^.:l Yiur Father sri Doriserti ; : :it,;i'. J ; ;, i,::i,:",i f1i7, i; rii "# "[i,i';i nr ooric;eiii,iuiv#u."vu i u, ;ff:ff ,["J [::?:,.,,I ia y""i.. 'or future employmeni on attaining the age "r iii. It is to submit th period, he dectared ,:11 Io" father during his service Lrc uno iJii#''.1,Jlll-un".as 1 year in leBB in hii the date oio""ir,"l'i'lo-3T:: .b,ook which means as on zs. rz. isgi ;ff;'J: s.rt Bheemaiah i.e., on n ot er is-ib ;rJ.?dyft Hi,# .133ii,..",0 a n d you were ::# ;,::,:'J ATJxl"r.iha t. the a bove matter was throush ;;; 'i"J.#' T^othuf.i'^u', smt. D. Bhoomakka z-:. ro.zoor ;rf";;;;; ,fr. sxo/:0/200l/2268, Date otd as on_il;_;;;;r#u.r y?,rr a-ee was berow 12 years ,.['ft rif{.".tl$ i; * iff !1 rixflu;# v.S n [?d :1 whichever ,, *.f ,u.] ", years/remarriage/death -Dorichetti r a h n d e 1 r r a I a d o e d 6 n t t M o1 eto timg,. Bhoo maklka was sa nctioned Monthlv ta rv ation of 2.OOO l- oer month in liglu of .19 9 vide em D lovn're No. e !ated P( w) /3932t MMC/ 200 Ll24 4, 1 /20 .10. 2001 andv our mother is bein o oaid d fro MMC a5 vi. tt is to further inform you that, as per (lompany rules f',,",rurrit, in case the minor male depencant is betwr:er the age groups of 12 and 18 years clc ls on ih" dut., cf death or medical unfitness of the em:loyee' u"ilr.r" '^/ife and nominee of the ex-employ'ee 'r1lt for MMD live roaster, then the wife of lhe ex- Uf"rC 'aritn L.pfoV,*, will be sanctioned MMC while rnentioning the narne: cf the minor male dependant in the san':tioned ;;;;;:, ,i..,iy advislng the male dependant to a6rplv' for i"p.i.f ,r,,t'"*ployment within six months from trt: date oi'nis ..rp"ting 18 years' It will also be specifieJ that o? r'lr'lt will be stopped once the trinrtr male ;r;;";i derend:nt attains 18 Years of age' vii Sitrc:e you were below 12 years rlld irs on 25.12.1-c'98, you are not eligible to keep yorlr nane on tn,: tit't, roster, and in the MMC sanction orde r dated 16.20.: 0.2001, your name was not incorporate(l' and it ;;;;;tf,"; in ihe order that Smt Bhoomakka is t:lisible MMC until she attains the 60 years cf age' iI=.,-ir ; o:.2025, or her remarriage or death' whi:hever is earlia-. As such, your case cannot be considered for O1pi,n..nt employment as per the gr.,idelines of the ccmpa 1'/, -i,:cei,,e

5.-r-!L trt 4ols_ rules- o'vment ._extant ionate h 6 '/otl are informed the rer:eiPt accordingly. Kindly ;rckrrowledge I .t 7 DISCUSSION AND C NCLUSION:- 5. Learned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the 4th respondent herein rejected the request of the petitioner for appointment in any suitable employment in the respondent_ corporation vide the impugned order / proceedings, Ref:MMR,/PER/L/062/23/47L2, dated 29.o8.2D2g, however respondent No.4 rejected the request of the petitioner for appointment of any suitable employment in respondent corporation contrary to the orders of this Court, dated 15.11.2O22 passed in W.p.No. 2201O of 2015, on the ground that the petitioner was betow 12 years old as on 25.12.1998 and further that the petitioner's name was not on the live roaster and in the MMC sanction order, dated 16.1O.20O1, petitioner,s name was not incorporated and therefore, the petitioner's case cannot be considered for appointment of any suitable. employment in the respondent- corporation. 6, Learned counsel appearing on behatf of the petitioner mainly contends that the order impugned, Y- .l 8 dated 23.O8.2(J23 is illegal and has to be set-arside, on the ground that the petitioner had the requisite age 12 years as ,rn 25.12.1998 and further, nanre of the petitioner was also on the live roster and sinr:e the petitioner had ample evidence to prove thart the petitioner 'ru'as 12 years old as on 25.12.1998 but in view of the fact that no opportunity of p,ersonal hearing r^ras given to the petitioner prior to pa:;s;ing of the impugrred order, dated 23.O8.2023, the petitioner could not grlace the same before the 4th resporrdent in support ol' petitioner's case for consideration for appointmerrt to any suitable employment in resglondent corporation in accordance to law and in terms of circular, No.P.4Ol5214/lR/ L875, dated 05.O9.:Lgf97 in terms of the dependent eligibility as per the pro(:edure laid down by the respondent corporatiotr with prospective ,effect as directed by this Court in favour of the petitiorrr3r on an earlier occasion vide its order, dated I.5,1J..2022 passed in W.P.No.22OLO of 2015.

7. Learne'dl standing counsel appearing on br:hralf of the respondents placing reliance on the ave,rments t 9 made in the counter .arri.J__ .. _ respondents rr"orr.t counser appearing contends that it is n had requisite 12 yea the petition..," ,r"n't" therefore, there is n.nt the 4th respondent ,._,:'::::r. I affidavit filed on behalf of the rs the pleas put-forth by the tearned behalf of the petitioner correct state that the petitioner a9e as on date 25.12.r99g nor tt" on the live roster and ,: *. order passed by 'ern, dated 23.Og.2023. r e a din I 1 I i n UN I r n rec ut- r u o t etiti n w t2 t r w VEr f A r a o e V r r I a d I t l 9, Learned cour petitioner submits a'"t' remitted to the o.n'"t afresh. t'ottring on behalf of the tnu subject issue needs to be respondent for reconsideration IO II\-l\1 '\.i lo.Learnerlstandingcounselappearingonbe|halfof the respondents does not dispute the said subnrission made by the, rlearned counsel appearing on behall rlf the petitioner. n id rat n 11. Takiggj n a) The llforcrs;aid facts and circumstances of the case' b) The submissions made by the learned (:Grunsel lea rned appearring on behalf of the standing c'ounsel aPpeartng petitioner and on behalf respondents. c) The: order of this Court, dated 15'11'20212 passed in W.P.No.22O:tO of 2015 passed in favour clf the petitioner(referred to and extracted above) Ther contents of the impugned procreedings d) Ref:MMP./PtaRlL/fi62123147L2' dated 23'018'2023 4th resPondent (referred t:o and passerl llY the extracted above) e) The circular guidelines No.P.4Ol 5 21 4 / tR I L87 5, datedo5.(lgl.lggTissuedbytherespondent-.cotporation f) The rrraterial documents filed on behall of the petitioner in support of the affidavit l'ilecl by the t n petitioner in the present Writ petition evidencing petitioner,s age as 12 years otd as on 25.12.199g. The Writ petation is ailowed, the order impugned proceedings Ref:MMR/pER/Ll062/23/47L2, 23.08,2023 of the 4th respondent is set_aside and the matter is remitted to the 4th respondent to consider the case of petitioner afresh for appointment in any suitable emptoyment in the respondent corporation on compassionate grounds rn accordance to laW as directed by this Court in its order, dated 15.11.2022 passed in W.p.No.22OlO of 2O15 by opportunity of personat hearing to the petitioner in conformity with principles of naturat justice, duly the petitioner to place all enabling the materiat rn support of petitioner,s case before the evidence competent Authority and pass appropriate orders pertaining to the request of the petitioner for providing any suitable employment to in terms of the Circular No.P.4O/5214/IR/1875, dated OS.O9.1997 issued by the respondent No.l_corporation as directed by this Court in its earlier order in favour of the petitioner, providing an I I dated 15.11..2022 passed in W.P.No.22O1O c'f 2O15 within a period of four (O4) weeks from the date of receipt of r:opy of the order and duly communir:arte the decision c,n the subject issue to the petitioner. However', there shall be no order as to costs. Mi:;ct:lla neous petitions, if any, pending she ll stand closed. /TTRUE COPY// SD/- S. MA LI,IK{,RJ[INA RAO AS$ ISinttr nectsrnaR oFFlcER tser:TtoN " , H:,:,!:5:]',iilB1 U,i!3":X?"{iiiil€Jt''1li?l 'f,"l,"J:ii'f:[iB:l , f [3'#ii:?i, 1 ?3,Xlli,ii?fl !'Jin'e'inl g*l e ri es c;o m p a nv L m ited' ' ilth;;J"r, xnammam'bistrict PIN-507 501 3. The G-errerar r,r',n'ge'"i'iia;iij Frvr )' in" Singareni 'lolle ries Company " iiri;i: iiln,reruddri, kiiitn'u' District.PlN-soz 1 ot .#"",?Eril jg1-::R:h"u:$ffiiJj?^fiaiq",',","T:il:*''"' s i5f,lJci t. 6. One CC tc Sttl P Sf co.LTD [OPt.,lc] 7. Two CD CoPies -strr r IS;[H-5HA[?NV tt?3SA?.f"YiJ=\ coLL,ERIEs '''lriB: PSK. o,.)\r- HIGH COUR'T DATED:10104[2025 C:C TODAY ORDER WP.No.24586 of 2023 4{ii s t4 () 2 t] Lll 2025 >z ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS r l- 40v 6