Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1479
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J.
Chintala Seetharavamma, Khammam District - Appellant
Vs.
The General Manager,Hyd And Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No.16660 of 2005
Decided On : 26-11-2025
Important Points
Subject
Employment Law - Compassionate Appointment
Headnote
(B) Estoppel - Consent for Appointment - The court held that the petitioner is estopped from contesting the appointment of the 6th respondent as she provided a notarized affidavit endorsing his candidacy while claiming the benefits of her husband's death, therefore her later objections were invalid. (Paras 22, 28)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought compassionate employment due to her husband's death in a road accident while it was revealed that another individual, who falsely claimed to be a family member, was appointed. The petitioner later contested this after years of accepting the decision.
Findings of Court:
The appointment of the 6th respondent was upheld due to lack of timely objections from the petitioner and her prior consent documented in notarized affidavits.
Issues: Whether the appointment was valid considering the petitioner’s previous consent and allegations of fraud by the 6th respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner’s prior consent undermines her current claims, and emphasized that compassion appointments require timely applications, or such claims become waived over time.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Abdul Azam Khan
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondents response to the petitioner's claims (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. details of additional affidavits by respondents (Para 5) |
| 4. claims of fraud in securing appointment (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. defense of fraudulent claims by the 6th respondent (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. court's examination of correspondence and representations (Para 11 , 13) |
| 7. evaluation of the legal heirs and appointment (Para 12 , 17) |
| 8. timeline and consequences of fraudulent claims (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 9. estoppel from questioning the appointment by consent (Para 22) |
| 10. precedents regarding compassionate appointments (Para 24 , 25) |
| 11. court's dismissal of meritless claims (Para 27 , 28) |
| 12. final dismissal of the writ petition (Para 29) |
ORDER:
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J.
This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 5 in not taking action against the 6th respondent for his removal from service and not considering the petitioner’s case for appointment under compassionate rules as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :-
(a) The petitioner’s husband, Chintala Venkateshwarlu, while working as a J.P.A. Helper in KTPS Station, Palvoncha, died in a road accident on 27.12.1998. The petitioner and her two daughters, viz., Nagamani and Renuka, are the only legal heirs of the deceased. After the death of her husband, the petitioner sought death benefits and made an application to the respondents seeking compassionate appointment to her or to her daughters. Despite repeated requests, the respondent authorities did not consider her application. Subsequently, she came to know that the 6th respondent, Venkaiah, who is not the son of her husband, was appointed under the compassionate appointment scheme.
(b) The petitioner made several representations to the respondent authorities to conduct enquiry and remove the 6th respondent from service. Though the respondent authorities completed enquiry, the respondents have not taken any action against the 6th respondent for his removal. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed a counter affidavit stating as follows :-
(a) Sri Chintala Venkateswarlu while working as JPA/Helper at KTPS, Palvancha, died in a road accident on 27.12.1998. The allegations made by the petitioner are not correct. The proposal has been received from the Chief Engineer, KTPS, along with an application submitted by Sri Ch.Venkaiah seeking compassionate appointment and also a legal heir certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Palvancha.
(b) As per the Legal Heir Certificate, the following persons are shown as the legal heirs of the deceased:
(1) Smt. Chintala Seetharavamma (wife),
(2) Smt. M. Nagamani (married daughter),
(3) Smt. S. Renuka (married daughter), and
(4) Sri Chintala Venkaiah (unmarried son).
(c) Along with the proposal, copies of the death certificate, educational certificates of Sri Ch.Venkaiah, and an affidavit duly notarized were enclosed. The said affidavit was submitted by the petitioner and her two daughters, authorizing Sri Venkaiah to be appointed on compassionate grounds as the son of the deceased employee.
(d) After scrutiny of the proposal, A.P. Genco, through Memo No. GM(A)/DS(PS)/AS(P)/B1-246/2000-1, dated 23.06.2000, permitted Sri Ch.Venkaiah to appear before the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose of compassionate appointments. On being found suitable, Sri Ch.Venkaiah was appointed as an Attender on compassionate grounds. The petitioner herself by submitting an affidavit had given consent for appointment of the 6th respondent and therefore, her later claim that the 6th respondent is not her son is false and an afterthought.
(e) No representation for compassionate appointment from the petitioner was pending at the time of Venkaiah’s appointment. On receipt of the petitioner’s complaint, a Vigilance enquiry was ordered to examine the matter. The report of the enquiry has been received and
