IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION No.18262 OF 2021 DATED: 18.02.2026 Between Smt. Neeradi Jyothi ... Petitioner AND The State of Telangana Represented by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 4 others.

... Respondents

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the memo in Lr.No.B/368/2021 dated 21.06.2021 issued by respondent No.4, whereby the request of the petitioner for appointment as VRA on compassionate grounds was rejected and also challenging the appointment of respondent No.5 on compassionate grounds as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents and perused the entire material on record.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner’s father, namely Neeradi Gangaram, was appointed as a Village Servant i.e., VRA and died while in service on 16.06.2005 and immediately thereafter the petitioner’s mother made a representation seeking compassionate appointment, but the same was not considered. It is stated that on attaining the age of majority, the petitioner has also made an application seeking compassionate appointment, but the same has been rejected vide impugned memo dated 21.06.2021 on the ground that the petitioner’s mother was illiterate and further that the petitioner has not made the application within one year of possessing the necessary qualification.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, though respondent No.5 had no relationship with the deceased employee, the official respondents considered the case of respondent No.5 for compassionate appointment and upon a complaint made by the petitioner, respondent No.5 was placed under suspension. He further submitted that respondent No.5 has since expired.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, relying upon the averments in the counter affidavit and the impugned order, submitted that the petitioner was a minor at the time of her father’s death and since she did not possess the requisite age and had not submitted her application within the prescribed time, her case could not be considered for compassionate appointment.

6. Having regard to the above submissions, this Court finds that admittedly, the petitioner was a minor at the time of her father’s death and her mother did not possess the necessary qualifications. The official respondents erroneously appointed respondent No.5 on compassionate grounds and after realizing that the appointment is erroneous, the official respondents have placed respondent No.5 under suspension. It appears that the petitioner did not make any representation seeking relaxation of age for compassionate appointment before the authorities. Therefore, liberty is granted to the petitioner to make such an application and the respondents are directed to consider the same for compassionate appointment against the vacancy that has arisen due to the death of respondent No.5.

7. At this stage, learned Assistant Government Pleader has pointed out that the post of VRA has since been abolished and therefore, the petitioner’s case cannot be considered against the said post.

8. Admittedly, the petitioner’s father was working as VRA and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to be considered for the said post, provided she is otherwise qualified. Since the post of VRA has been abolished, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment in any other equivalent post or last grade post in the District, in accordance with law. Such consideration and necessary orders shall be passed within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

No order as to costs.

10. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand clo