The High Court · 2025

Heard Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri p. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Co[ieries Company Limited appearing on behalf of respondents.

2. The petitioner filed the present writ Detition see kino the followino relief : "...to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of the 4th respondent in issuing proceedings vide Ref. No. RG I/ CF 1223/ 20221600 dated 05.12.2022, refusing to consider the case of the petitioner,s son, Sri. D. Raju for appointment under medical invalidation scheme as per Circular issued by the Respondent Company dated 09.03.2018, having declared medically unFit and terminated the petitioner from service from 07.12.2013 now making allegations without issuance of any charge sheet or conducting enquiry and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and without furnishing vigilance report, depriving petitioner's son dependent employment as illegal, unjust contrary to law arbitrary, amounts to unfair labour practice, in violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the -iir*- ,tt:Ee?&r' I 2 SN, J wP 40290-022 Constitution of India and benefits and to Pass...". grant all consequential

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief is. that the petitioner was appointed as a Badli Filler with the respondent company on 23.09.1981 and later promoted as a Coal Cutter on 07'12'2013' the petitioner was declared medically unfit and was terminated from service after the petitioner refused an alternative post due tohealthissues.Beingilliterate,thepetitionerappliedfor dependent employment for his son, Dommeti Raju on 10.05.2014, under the medical invalidation scheme' submitting thenecessarydocuments.However,thecompanyrejectedthe request, alleging that the petitioner's original name was Muramjodu Rajeshwar Rao and that the petitioner had secured employment under the name Dommeti Laxmaiah' making the petitioner's son ineligible and the petitioner's monetary benefits' includingRs.l2.5lakhsandRs'15,712(MMC)'werealso withheld. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4,P RUS T RE R (A) Th o aon h u f r s ent N .4 vid ef No. G F 2 20 3 SN, J wP 40290 2022 6OO dated O5.L2.2O22a ssued to the etitioner is extracted here u nder: "You are hereby informed that for the Dependant employment of your Son Do'mmeti Raju W.P.No.4029O of 2022 has been Filed before the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana. The Hon'ble Court directed vide I.A.No.1 of 2022, dated 02.11.2022 to reconsider the dependent employment application. In view of the said orders, the application is reconsidered and in the enquiry it is noticed that vou were n t in the emolovment bv vour oriqinal name viz., Muramiodu Raieswarao o, S/o. Kanakai ah, Raiioet Villaoe but was in em lovment bv nam Dommeti Lakshmaiah, and as such no deoende nt emolovment can be oiven- A rt from this vou are not entitled for the moneta benefit of one tim e lumDsum amount of Rs.12.5 I khs and MMC amount of Rs.15.7121- Please ta ke notice accord ingly. " B) The relevant oortion of the order of this Court dated

21.Oa. O19 oassed in W.P.No.9O4 of 2O19 filed bv one Meraka Madanaiah oertainino to a similar subiect lssue as lnvolved in the Dresent writ Detition is extracted here u nder: T 4 SN, J wP 40290 2022 "This Court, having considered the rival is of the considered view that the submissions, impugned order was passed without proper application of mind and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. When the petitioner had worked with the respondents for more than thirty years/ the respondents have not raised the issue that the petitioner has impersonated and secured employment deceitfully with the respondents. It is only after the petitioner being retired under medical invalidation scheme, the respondents rejected the case of the petitioner's son for dependent employment on the ground that the petitioner has secured employment by impersonating one Sri Akula Srihari. There is no basis for such a finding to be recorded by the respondents that too behind the back of the petitioner, without giving any opportunity to him. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for providing dependent employment to his son and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." (c) The releva t Dortionoft he Division Bench order of d in W.A.No.90 of urt dated O9. 09.202L Dasse this Co 2O19 is extracted hereunder: ( rtn**x*i.t ,}Y$gxr 5 SN, J wP 40290 2022 "Admittedly, the respondent/writ petitioner discharged his duties and retired in the year 2013 on medical grounds and no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him during his employment alleging impersonation, but, only when he sought dependent employment to his son after his retirement on medical grounds, the same was rejected by the appellant company by impugned order stating that the respondent/ writ petitioner is not entitled for dependant employment. Learned Single Judge gone into the said aspect and came to a conclusion that since the appellant company has not taken such plea during his employment and initiated disciplinary proceedings the apoellant against the respondent/ petitioner, om an is not en n the re ues r for de f n n s emDlovment on that qround. In this case, it is true that the appellant company could have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent/ writ petitioner during his employment on the ground of impersonation, but they allowed him to work and allowed him to retire on medical g rounds. Onlv when the emDlovee wanted deoendant emDlovment to his son after his retirement on medical orounds, the aoDellant comDanv reiected th claim of deoendant emolovment on the round of imDersonation d which aooears to be an after thouqht of aDDellant I 6 SN, J wP 40290 2022 com anv to denv the deoendan t emDlovm ent. Learned Sinqle Jud qe has riohtlv con sidered the firmi tV n iha e and e-i Hence r as the le rEl .l also me to the same conclusion Hence, this is not a fit case where we can exercise our appellant jurisdiction for interdicting the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed ' No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed."

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the issue raised in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated 21.08.2019 passed in W.P. No.904 of 2019, which was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated Og.Og.2021 passed in W.A. No. 909 of 2019. Therefore, the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed as prayed for.

6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner, ( f 7 SN. J wP 40290 2022 Sri D. Laxmaiah, secured employment under the name Dommeti Lakshmaiah, whereas his original name was actually Muramjodu Rajeswara Rao, S/o' Kanakaiah' resident of Rajipet Village. In view of the fact that the petitioner obtained employment not under his original name' it is contended that the petitioner committed fraud' and therefore, the request of the petitioner for providing dependent employment to the petitioner's son' Dommeti Raju, cannot be considered.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that the impugned order dated 05'12'2022 issued by respondent No.4 clearly states that the petitioner is not entitled to monetary benefits, including the lump sum amount of Rs.12.5 lakhs and MMC amount of Rs'15'7121-' and that the said order had been passed without providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner behind petitioner's back, despite the petitioner having served the respondents for more than three decades' Therefore' the impugned order dated 05'L2'2022 passed by respondent No.4 is liable to be set aside' 4 8 h r e 8 n u a a tn o SN, J wP 40290 2022 e e a t h d m n sr 'chalrm an an Ma I d a d r s o d n c n e 0 7 na qt nq Director, F n c 6 oi ra ton f Cor I n Ker a ar a d s r s a c onLine a ira a d others" 202I sc en r o I n An e v s.sarad a ma ni an d 199 5suoo 4) scc oo tn ( "Union of Indiaa nd others vs. G. Rad hakrish na n"': a nd o2t scc onLtne Alt 1486 in" Na ren dra Ku mar Trioathi

256.6 tn 'As stant he rs t I a a v P n s" t o o s b n (1) Section 17 of the LimitationAct, which addresses the effect of fraud or mistake, stipulates that in the case of a mistake, the limitation period runs from the date on which the mistake was discovered or could, with due diligence, have been discovered. (2) When the appointment of the petitioner is itself vitiated by fraud and is illegal, the petitioner cannot claim any statutory entiflement to salary, consequential rights, or other monetary benefits. (3) The iregarity of the petitioner,s appointment goes to the root of the . and the petitioner cannot be considered alppointment, ; an employee. Furthermore, a 9 SN, J wP 40290 2022 person who seeks equity must come with clean hands and must act in a fair and equitable manner.

9. This Court o nes that ther ition utf D a is no d isoute with h h Stan unsel i the i udqmen (referred to and The to he fa o r vea U n ex- Drovidi nq a rea

5.1 2022 nducted behind the back of the Detiti oner, wit sonableo Dortu nitv of rsona I hearin oto titioner and a u nil ateral conc! uston w s arrivedat the oetitioner s cured emolovment in the resDondent ot underhiso rioinal name but under a Com Danv n the oe hat he e .It t m L ks Mu e lo me h Co t n er Co u t n Dommet iRa was re I ected. Fu rtherm ore, the rmDu ned r dat .L2. 2st h hem e due to the etition r the I mD sum amoun t of Rs. 2.5 .I I I l 10 Il k n e M c s d. hotdi o th t same, SN, J wP_40290 2022 1 7 2 ED ittonerisnot enti ledto the n

10. The pteas put fofth by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that although the petitioner rendered 30 years of service, the fraud committed by the petitioner came to light only when the petitioner made a request for dependent employment, and therefore, as per Section 17 of the Limitation Act, the limitation period runs from the date when the mistake was discovered or could have been discovered with due diligence, is not reasonable in view of the fact, as borne on the record. that the petitioner made an application for dependent employment on 10.05.2014, and the impugned order dated 05.L2.2022 was admittedly passed more than eight years after petitioner made the petitioner,s application to the respondents seeking dependent employment. 11. The judgments relied upon by the Respondent Company do not apply to the facts of the present case. In view of the simple fact borne on record that the impugned order dated 05.12.2022 issued by respondent No.4 SN, J wP 40290 2022 admittedly was passed without conducting any inquiry in accordance with law, and without providing the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to present his case in defense, and since the record does not indicate any conclusion having arrived at on the merits establishing that the petitioner committed fraud, this Court opines that the said pleas had been raised solely to deny employment to the petitioner. Moreover, these pleas were put forth more than a decade after the petitioner submitted the petitioner application dated 10.05.2014 seeking dependent employment for the petitioner's son, Dommeti Raju, as per the rules in force. t2. This Court opines that there is no justification for denying the relief as prayed for by the petitioner herein, since the impugned order is an ex-parte order passed without providing the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing, in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the reasons indicated in the impugned order, dated 05.12.2O22 were raised more than a decade after the petitioner submitted the application dated 10.05.2014, seeking dependent employment for the petitioner's son, Dommeti Raju, as per the rules in force. 7 I I 12 SN, J wP 40290 2022

13. A bare perusal of the order, impugned dated. ()5.12.2022 of the 4th respondent issued to the petitioner apparenuy indicates that apptication of the petitioner had been reconsidered as per the orders of this Court, dated O2.1I.2022 passed in I.A.No.O1 of 2022 in W.p.No.4O290 of 2022 and in enquiry, it was noticed that petitioner was not in emptoyment by petitioner's original name i.e., Muramjodu Rajeshwar Rao, S/o Kanakaih, Rajipet Village, but was in employment by name Dommeti Lakshmaiah and as such no dependent employment could be given and further that petitioner was not entitled for the monetary benefit of one time tump sum amount of Rs.12.5 lakhs and MMC amount of Rs.15,7t2/_. This Court opines that the order impugned of the 4th respondent, dated O5.L2.2O22 issued to the petitioner, admittedly is an unreasoned, unilatera! conclusion arrived at by the 4th respondent in an enquiry conducted without providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner in clear violation of principles of natural justice behind the back of the petitioner, arbitrarily, illegally contrary to the spirit of 13 SN, J wP 40290 2022 the orders of this Court, dated 02.11.2O22 passed in I.A.No.O1 ot 2022 in W.P.No.4O29O of 2O22 having terminated the petitioner's services from the respondent company w.e.f . 07.l2.2OL3t the pleas put- forth vide the ampugned order of the 4th respondent, dated O5.12.2022 is after more than eight years after petitioner having been declared medically unfit for further service in the company and at no point of time, since the petitioner joined service of the respondent company on 23.O9.1981 and tall 07.t2.2O13, the date when petitioner's services had been terminated the petitioner had ever been put on notice pertaining to the allegations leveled against the petitioner as reflected in the order impugned, dated 05.L2.2022 ol the 4th respondent passed in compliance to the directions of this Court, dated 02.11.2022 passed in I.A.No.O1 of 2022 in W.P.No.4O29O of 2OZ2 and therefore for the aforesaid reasons, this Court opines that petitioner is entitled for grant of relief as prayed for in the present Writ Petition, duly considering the view of this Court in identical similar circumstances vide judgment, dated 21.O9.2019 passed in 14 SN, J \\P 40290 2022 W.P.No.9O4 of 2OL9, as confirmed vide Division Bench order of this Court, dated 09.O9.2021 passed tn W.A.No.9O9 of 2019 (referred to and extracted above). TOIN TAKING cONSIDERATION: L4. (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, (b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, (c) The impugned order of the respondent No.4 vide Ref. No. RG l/CFt223/2022/600 dated 05.12.2022 issued to the petitioner (referred to and extracted above), (d) The order of this Court dated 21.08.2019 passed in W.P.No.9O4 of 2019 (referred to and extracted above), (e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated

09.09.2021 passed in W.A.No.9O9 of 2O19 (referred to and extracted above), ) .t l5 SNJ wP 40290 2022 (f) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, \ (S) The law laid down by the Apex Court in the Judgments relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Company (referred to and extracted above), The Writ Petition is allowed, The imouoned order resoondent No.4 vide Ref.No .RG Dass rtcFt223 l2o22l600 dated O5.12.2O2 2 to the oetitioner bv the aside. The resoondents are directed to cons ider herein the case of the oetitio ner's son, Dommeti Ra u I aDDOln ment under the Medical Invalidation Scheme as h Circu I t ondent m n

09.03.2 O18, in view of the fact th t the Detitio decla red medicallv unfit and was te minated from servlce er was on O7.L2.2OL3 ando ss aoorooriate orders in acc rdance w a of erso h afln to the etitioner with in a oeriod of ix(6) weeks f m the date of receiot of a coDv of this order and dulv commu nicate the decrsron However, t ere shall be no order as to costs. to the Detitioner herein. t6 SN, J wP 40290 2022 The miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed To, SD/-AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER Kothagudem, Khammam district. Area-1, Godavarikhani, Ped<iapalli district. Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad-4

1. The Chairman and Managing Director , Singareni Collieries Company Limited, 2 The Director (P and AW), Singareni Collierres Company Limited, 3. The General [Vlanager, Singareni Collieries Company Limited Ramagundam 4. The Colliery Manager, Singareni Collieries Company Limited GDK-1 1 ln-cline, 5. One CC to SRl. M. RAM MOHAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 6 One CC to SRl. P. SRI HARSHA REDDY (SC FOR SINGARENT 7. Two CD Copies RG-l Area, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli district coLLTERTES CO.LTD) [OPUC] BNI BS w, I t I ' CC TODAY lJr' -l Eii ()t \'j l5 0? 25 t +'.i,i:i, l] HIGH COURT DATED:1810712025 ORDER WP.No.40290 ot 2022 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS t: q q q