Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 62898

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J
Chintala Seetharavamma – Appellant
Versus
APGENCO – 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 voluntarily provided formal consent for a compassionate appointment of another party is estopped from subsequently challenging that appointment, especially after a significant lapse of time, unless there is clear proof of illegality that would justify judicial intervention.

Headnote:(A) Compassionate Appointment - Estoppel - Petitioner had given a notarized affidavit consenting to the appointment of the sixth respondent following the death of her husband - Subsequently, after a lapse of four years and after the sixth respondent had secured the position and completed several years of service, the petitioner sought to challenge the appointment on the grounds of fraud and lack of status as a legal heir - Court held that once the petitioner had provided formal consent for the appointment, she is estopped from questioning the same - The writ petition was found to be devoid of merits as there was no illegality in the initial appointment process based on the documents provided at the relevant time. (Paras 22, 23, 28)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner’s husband died in 1998 while in service. The sixth respondent was appointed under the compassionate appointment scheme in 2000, supported by legal heir certificates and a notarized affidavit from the petitioner giving her 'No Objection'. Years later, due to internal family disputes, the petitioner alleged that the sixth respondent’s documents were forged and sought his removal to facilitate her own claim for compassionate appointment.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the petitioner had voluntarily signed documents authorizing the sixth respondent's appointment. Professional authorities conducted a vigilance inquiry and concluded that the appointment was processed correctly based on documents received. Given that the sixth respondent had served for over 15 years and the petitioner's belated claims arose from personal family disagreements rather than genuine administrative error, the Court refused to interfere.

Issues: Whether the appointment of the sixth respondent on compassionate grounds should be set aside due to allegations of fraud/forgery, and whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for her own compassionate appointment after a significant lapse of time.

Ratio Decidendi: Compassionate appointment is not a matter of inheritance; where a claimant has previously provided formal consent and allowed a significant delay to pass, they remain estopped from challenging the appointment subsequently, especially in the absence of manifest illegality in the appointment process.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the compassionate appointment dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. summary of rival contentions regarding procedural fairness and consent. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. appreciation of evidence and the principle of estoppel by prior consent. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. applicability of precedent regarding delays in compassionate appointment claims. (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 27.12.1998. The 6th respondent is the adopted so

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 62898

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADNamavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, JChintala Seetharavamma – AppellantVersusAPGENCO – RespondentWRIT PETITION No.16660 OF 2005

A claimant who has voluntarily provided formal consent for a compassionate appointment of another party is estopped from subsequently challenging that appointment, especially after a significant lapse of time, unless there is clear proof of illegality that would justify judicial intervention.

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