HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.2135 OF 2021

ORDER:

Heard Sri Vanaparthi Vaishali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri A. Chandra Shaker, learned Sanding Counsel for NPDCL appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner approached this Court seeking the prayer as under:

“….to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the rejection of the Petitioners application for compassionate appointment vide Lr.No.SE/OP/KNR/DE(T)/PO/JAO/LEGAL/F.NO.K-

184, D.No.2239 Dtd.17-12-2015, although she remains eligible to seek compassionate appointment as junior assistant or in any other suitable post in her mother’s place after the latters expiry as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and consequently to reconsider the petitioners application dated -11-09-2008 and representation dated 12-11-2020 under GO.Ms.No.350 dated 30-07-1999 by granting compassionate appointment as sought for and to pass.”

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is the daughter of late Kante Laxmi, who died on 03.12.2007, while working as Office Subordinate in Electricity Department, Karimnagar. The petitioner and petitioner’s sister are the only legal heirs, and petitioner’s sister had given a No Objection for the petitioner’s compassionate appointment. Since the spouse of the deceased employee is not alive, the petitioner submitted an application dated 11.09.2008 seeking compassionate appointment and the same was rejected vide Lr.No. SE/OP/KNR/DE(T)/PO/JAO/LEGAL/F.No.K-184, D.No.2239, dated 17.12.2015 solely on the ground that the spouse of the deceased employee is not alive. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

PERUSED THE RECORD:

A) The relevant portion of the impugned letter vide Lr.No. SE/ OP/ KNR/ DE(T)/ PO/ JAO/ LEGAL / F.No.K- 184, D.No.2239, dated 17.12.2015 of the Superintending Engineer, Operation/ TSNPDCL, Karimnagar i.e., 2^nd respondent addressed to the petitioner herein is extracted hereudner:

“While so, you are here by informed that, the respondents company has been following the guidelines issued by the state government in relation to providing employment to the dependents of the deceased employees under compassionate reasons on the following grounds:

a) In T.O.O.(CGM-HRD & Trg) Ms.No.301, dated

23.03.2004 read with Government Memo No.116417/Ser.A/2003-1, (GAD - Ser - A) Department, Dt. 08.10.2003, it was clarified as follows:

“It is to clarified that the policy of the government is to provide compassionate appointment to the dependents of deceased government employees to hold the family in distress and according if the deceased government employee was having more than one dependent married daughter and when the spouse of the deceased government employee is not willing to avail the compassionate appointment one of the dependent married daughter may be considered for compassionate appointment subject to eligibility as per the scheme of compassionate appointment.

b) While so, in relation to your case since the spouse of the deceased employee is not alive as per Lr.No.CGM(HRD & Trg)/ DS(P)/ PO- 4/ A2/ 113/ 2005, Dt.18.10.2005 read with memo No.CGM(HRD)/ GM(I R)/ AS(I R)/ 25-JPO (G1)09, dt. 17.08.2009 and Proc.No.SE/ OP/ KNR)De(T)/ PO/ C2/ D.No.87/ 0

9, Dt.20.04. 2009 your case for appointment in the respondents company under compassionate grounds has been rejected.”

B) The order of this Court dated 02.07.2015 passed in W.P.M.P.No.25776 of 2015 in W.P.No.19988 of

2015 is extracted hereunder:

“There shall be interim direction to the respondents to consider the representation, dated 09.12.2014 submitted by the petitioner subject to eligibility within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

C) The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and in particular, paragraph No.7 is extracted hereunder:

“7. It is submitted that, in this inst