IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH DATE:05.05.2026 Between: L.Sunitha …Petitioner AND

1, The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and two others …Respondents

ORDER:

1. The instant Writ Petition is filed questioning the impugned Proc.No.DS(P)/785(04)/2023-RM:N dated 16.06.2023 whereby the respondents have refused to consider the case of the petitioner for providing employment on compassionate grounds on the ground of pendency of WP No.38182 of 2022 and sought to set aside the impugned order and direct the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for providing appointment on compassionate grounds.

2. Heard Sri V.Narsimha Goud, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Chandra Sekhar, learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation and perused the record.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner, namely L. Mallaiah, while he was working as a Welder on a regular basis, he was removed from service by the respondent No. 3 on 16.01.2016. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal and revision before the respective authorities, but the same were rejected on 04.10.2016 and 10.03.2017 respectively. Challenging the said orders, the husband of the petitioner filed I.D. No. 19 of 2017 on the file of the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. The Labour Court set aside the removal order by its Award dated 15.02.2021 and directed the respondents to reinstate him into service with continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages. It was further observed that the Award would come into force after 31 days from the date of its publication. The Award was published on 22.04.2021 and accordingly it came into force with effect from 22.05.2021.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that even after the lapse of more than three months, the respondents did not reinstate the husband of the petitioner into service. In the meanwhile, the petitioner’s husband died on 06.08.2021, leaving behind the petitioner/(wife), children and his mother as legal heirs. Consequent on death of her husband, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 04.09.2021 to the respondent No. 3 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds.

5. The learned counsel further submits that aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 11865 of 2023, which was disposed of by this Court on 27.04.2023, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 04.09.2021. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 passed an order rejecting the petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment on 16.06.2023 on the ground that she was not eligible under the Bread Winner Scheme and the settlement of amounts would be considered only after disposal of W.P. No. 38182 of 2022 filed by the respondent Corporation. Aggrieved by the said order dated 16.06.2023, the present writ petition is filed.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in fact the respondent No.1 issued a Circular No.14/1992, dated 11.09.1992 directing all the concerned officers to issue reinstatement order by addressing it to the last known address of the removed employee in compliance of the Labour Court Awards, but the respondents have not followed the same and hence the husband of the petitioner was deemed to be in service till the date of his death on 06.07.2021.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submit that the impugned order was passed on 16.06.2023, wherein it was stated that it is not feasible to provide any employment under bread winner scheme in view of pendency of WP No.38182/2022 filed by the respondent-Corporation against the Award passed in ID No.19/2017. But, during the pendency of the instant writ petition, the said writ petition was also dismissed on 13.09.2024 and it has became final and in view of the same the reasons mentioned in the impugned order are not tenable and the respondents have to consider th