APHC010052172025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3558]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 2931/2025 Between:

1. SHAIK HUSSAIN, S/O LATE ISSAK MADEENA, AGED 41 YEARS, OC UN EMPLOYEE R/O D.NO.44-17-1/1 BEHIND NAGESWARA GAS GODOWN, TATICHETLAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM.

...PETITIONER AND

1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, SANCHAR BHAWAN, 20, ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001.

2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR, BARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., (PERSONAL-IV SECTION), 5TH FLOOR, BHARAT SANCHAR BHAVAN, JANPATH, NEW DELHI.

3. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM, BARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED., TELANGANA CIRCLE, HYDERABAD

4. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, BARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., BSNL BHAVAN, ELURU ROAD, VIJAYAWADA-520 010.

5. THE SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER, BARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., TELECOM DISTRICT, DABA GARDENS, VISAKHAPATNAM-530 020 ...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order Date 16.02.2024 in O.A.No.415 of 2020 passed by the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds with all consequential benefits including notional seniority and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. GORLA MANASA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. K ARUNA

2.

The Court made the following:

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

The order dated 16.02.2024 passed in O.A.No.20/415/2020 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, whereby, the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected, is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. Heard Ms. Gorla Manasa, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Smt. K.Aruna, learned Standing Counsel for BSNL appearing for the respondents.

3. The writ petitioner is the son of a person by name Issak Madeena. His father Issak Madeena was an employee working as Mazdoor in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short, ‘BSNL’). While he was in service, he unfortunately died in harness on 30.10.2002. Thereafter, the writ petitioner has applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. Late Issak Madeena got a son, who is the writ petitioner herein and a daughter. The request of the writ petitioner, who is his son, for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected by the concerned authority after making an enquiry and declined to appoint him on compassionate grounds. Be it noted here only that the said rejection was not challenged by the writ petitioner before the Tribunal or any Court. He only made a request to re-consider his request. The same was not re-considered. Thereafter, he has again made another application to appoint him on compassionate grounds. The said application was also rejected by the concerned authority on the ground that there was no vacancy as on the date of the said application, to appoint him on compassionate grounds. He challenged the same before the Tribunal in O.A.No.284 of 2017. The said O.A. was disposed of. Thereafter, he again made another request to appoint him on compassionate grounds. The said request is again rejected on the ground that there is no vacancy to appoint him on compassionate grounds. It is the said third request that was rejected was challenged by the writ petitioner before the Tribunal in O.A.No.20/415/2020. The said O.A. was dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and as there is a delay of 1