SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 36353

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J
Chintala Seetharavamma – Appellant
Versus
A.P. Genco – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.16660 OF 2005



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Abdul Azam Khan
For the Respondents: K. Udaya Sri, K. Venkat Reddy

A claimant who has provided formal notarized consent for the compassionate appointment of another family member is estopped from later challenging such appointment on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation, particularly after a significant lapse of time and once the appointee has long rendered service.

Headnote:(A) Compassionate Appointment - Estoppel - Petitioner had given a notarized affidavit consenting to the appointment of the 6th respondent - After a delay of four years following such consent, the petitioner sought the removal of the 6th respondent - High Court held that the petitioner is estopped from questioning such appointment - Principle of expediency in compassionate employment mandates that claims should not be entertained after a considerable lapse of time or where the family has already reached a settlement. (Paras 22, 23, 28)

Facts of the case:
Following the death of her husband in a road accident, the petitioner initially consented to the appointment of the 6th respondent as an Attender on compassionate grounds. Years later, due to internal family disputes, the petitioner alleged that the 6th respondent had forged documents and misrepresented his status as a legal heir, seeking his removal and demanding she be considered for the position instead.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the respondents conducted a vigilance enquiry and concluded that there were no bona fides in the petitioner's complaint. The Court held that the petitioner’s prior notarized consent and the 6th respondent's 15-year tenure preclude interference, especially since the relief sought is barred by estoppel and laches.

Issues: Whether the 6th respondent’s appointment was obtained via fraud and whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the same after years of having provided express consent.

Ratio Decidendi: When a legal heir has provided formal notarized consent for another family member's compassionate appointment, they are estopped from subsequently challenging that appointment based on retrospective grievances or family disputes, particularly when the appointee has served for a significant duration without prior complaint.

Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background involving the compassionate appointment and subsequent disputes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. summary of contentions raised by the petitioner and respondents regarding the validity of the appointment. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. court's analysis of the evidence and the doctrine of estoppel. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. application of legal precedents on delay and final dismissal of the petition. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)

ORDER:

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 is under consideration by the competent authority.

4. Respondent No.6 filed a counter affidavit stating as follows :-

(a) The petitioner’s husband, late Chinthala Venkateswarlu, worked as a JPA Helper in KTPS, Palvancha, and died in a road accident on 27.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top