Telangana High Court
Chintala Seetharavamma, Khammam ... vs The General Manager,Hyd And 5 Others on 26 November, 2025
fTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.16660 OF 2005
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 2 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: 3
(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. 4
(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 son of the deceased and the petitioner. He was brought up by the petitioner and her husband and was treated as their son.
(b) The 6th respondent obtained a legal heir certificate from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Palvancha, dated 13.02.1999, wherein he was shown as the legal heir of the deceased. The 6th respondent has not fabricated any documents and claims that the petitioner herself executed a 5 notarized affidavit dated 25.02.1999, giving her consent for his appointment under compassionate grounds. Even the petitioner's brother-in-law, Veerabhadram, later filed a notarized affidavit on 04.02.2000 confirming the settlement of family disputes and supporting the appointment of the 6th respondent.
(c) After verification and enquiry, the 6th respondent was appointed as an Attender on 15.07.2000, and his services were regularized in the year 2002. The petitioner filed this writ petition after nearly five years only due to personal family disputes. The petitioner has already received death benefits of the deceased and she is also receiving family pension and therefore, she has no valid claim.
5. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed additional affidavit stating as follows :-
(a) The 6th respondent was appointed as Attender vide orders dated 15.07.2000 and thereafter, he was issued charge-sheet dated 29.09.2005 on the allegation of giving false declaration and claiming fraudulently employment 6 under dependent quota. An enquiry was conducted against the 6th respondent and after conducting enquiry, he was issued Show Cause Notice dated 14.02.2006 as to why he should not be awarded with punishment of removal from service. Aggrieved by the same, the 6th respondent filed W.P.No.3192 of 2006 before this Court. In W.P.M.P.No.3961 of 2006 in W.P.No.3192 of 2006, this Court by order dated 23.02.2006 granted interim stay of all further proceedings.
Thereafter, the said writ petition was allowed by order dated 27.09.2011 by setting aside the show cause notice dated 14.02.2006, however, kept it open to issue Show Cause Notice and thereafter take further steps in accordance with law.
(b) Pursuant to the order passed in W.P.No.3192 of 2006, dated 27.09.2011, the 6th respondent was issued Memo No.JS(P)/DS(E)/AS(V&R)(NT)/PO-1/38/2005, dated 22.02.2012 alleging that he has obtained signed blank papers from Ch.Seetaravamma, for the purpose of securing appointment on compassionate grounds on the death of her husband and also managed to get false certificates from 7 MRO Office and also obtained Ration Card and Medicinal Card/KTPS and thereby, he has cheated her and her family and also the Government by securing the appointment on the compassionate grounds. In response to the same, the 6th respondent submitted an explanation on 06.03.2012. On consideration of the explanation, it was found that the petitioner herself has given an affidavit, which was notarized on 25.02.1999 and her daughters viz., Smt. Nagamani and Smt. Renuka have also given an affidavit stating that they have No Objection for appointment of the 6th respondent. (c
(c) During the vigilance enquiry, the petitioner gave statement stating that the 6th respondent is her sister's son and she has taken care of the 6th respondent and that the name of the 6th respondent is also recorded in the registers of KTPS for the purpose of availing the LTC.
(d) On consideration of the relevant factors and also keeping in view that the 6th respondent has put in more than 12 years of service, the respondents have decided to drop the further action against the 6th respondent and accordingly, proceedings, dated 24.04.2012 were issued to that effect.
8
(e) The record further discloses that the petitioner has also given a statement stating that her husband's brother Sri Ch.Veerabadram has making issues for providing employment to the 6th respondent and ignoring him, the 6th respondent should be provided employment in the interest of the family. Sri Ch. Veerabadram, the brother of the deceased employee, has also given an affidavit on 04.02.2000 stating that the disputes between himself and the 6th respondent have been resolved and he has no objection to provide employment to the 6th respondent under deceased quota.
(f) On consideration of the said statements, the 6th respondent was issued letter dated 29.06.2000 to appear for interview for providing employment. Thereafter, the 6th respondent was issued order dated 15.07.2000 along with five others appointing as Attenders under compassionate grounds.
(g) After a lapse of four years, the petitioner gave a complaint dated 24.12.2004. On the totality of the circumstances, it was found that there are no bonafides in the complaint lodged by the petitioner. Hence, the 9 proceedings dated 22.04.2012 were issued to drop further action against the 6th respondent.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 6th respondent submitted fabricated documents and forged the petitioner's signature to misrepresent himself as a legal heir of the deceased to secure the appointment. The petitioner made several representations and also issued a legal notice dated 19.04.2005 to the respondents, requesting removal of the 6th respondent and consideration of her own claim for appointment on compassionate grounds.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the respondents conducted enquiry and found that the 6th respondent obtained job by committing fraud and he is not entitled for compassionate appointment for the death of the deceased. The respondent authorities also found that the 6th respondent is not the son of the deceased, but he is the son of one Orsu Anjaiah. Though the respondent authorities completed enquiry, till date, no action has been taken against the 6th respondent. 10 Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and allow the writ petition.
8. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 submits that the relief sought in the writ petition insofar as providing employment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds is misconceived, as she herself gave notarized affidavit on 25.02.1999, wherein she has categorically stated that she has no interest to do job in KTPS and agreed to provide employment to the 6th respondent. Even, the petitioner's brother-in-law, Veerabhadram, filed an affidavit on 04.02.2000 confirming the settlement of family disputes and supporting the appointment of the 6th respondent. Therefore, at this length of time, removing the 6th respondent and providing employment to the petitioner does not arise. There is no irregularity and illegality in issuing the appointment order to the 6th respondent under compassionate grounds. 11 Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent submits that the 6th respondent is the adopted son of the deceased and the petitioner. The 6th respondent was brought up by the petitioner and her husband and was treated as their son. There are no bonafides in the complaint lodged by the petitioner. Hence, the proceedings dated 22.04.2012 were issued to drop further action against the 6th Respondent.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent further submits that the petitioner has given notarized affidavit on 25.02.1999 and her daughters viz., Smt.Nagamani and Smt. Renuka have also given an affidavit stating that they have No Objection for appointment of the 6th respondent. During the vigilance enquiry, the petitioner gave statement stating that the 6th respondent is the son of her sister and she has taken care of the 6th respondent and that the name of the 6th respondent 12 is also recorded in the registers of KTPS for the purpose of availing the LTC.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent further submits that on consideration of the relevant factors and also keeping in view the fact that the 6th respondent has put in more than 12 years of service, the official respondents have decided to drop further action against the 6th respondent and accordingly, proceedings, dated 24.04.2012 were issued to that effect. The official respondents have rightly appointed the 6th respondent on compassionate grounds. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and is liable to be dismissed.
12. Heard Mr.Abdul Azam Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.K.Udaya Sri, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri K.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent. Perused the material available on record.
13. The present writ petition is with regard to compassionate appointment. After the death of the 13 petitioner's husband, the petitioner made an application to the respondents seeking compassionate appointment to her or to her daughters. While pending the said application, the petitioner received all the death benefits and repeatedly requesting the authorities to consider her case for compassionate appointment. The petitioner's husband died in a road accident on 27.12.1998. After a lapse of several years, the petitioner came to know that the respondent authorities appointed her relative by name Venkaiah, who is none other than the 6th respondent in the present writ petition, under compassionate grounds, for the death of her husband. Subsequently, on her enquiry, she came to know that the 6th respondent fabricated documents to the effect that he was brought by her husband and created the records, as if he is the legal heir of her husband and forged the petitioner's signature and fabricated the documents and submitted to the respondent authorities to the effect that she made a declaration that she has no objection for appointment of the 6th respondent under compassionate appointment rules.
14
14. The petitioner stated that though the 6th respondent is not the legal heir of the deceased, by misleading the respondent authorities, obtained compassionate appointment for the death of her husband. Immediately, she made a representation to the respondent authorities to conduct an enquiry against the 6th respondent and remove him from service. But, the respondent authorities did not take any action against the 6th respondent. Finally, the petitioner got issued a legal notice, dated 19.04.2005 to take action against the 6th respondent. The respondent authorities after receiving the petitioner's notice, intimated the petitioner's counsel vide proceedings dated 18.06.2005 that the matter is under examination and appropriate examination would be taken in the matter, based on the results of the findings in due course.
15. The petitioner further stated that the respondent authorities conducted an enquiry and found that the 6th respondent obtained appointment by committing fraud and he is not entitled for appointment under compassionate grounds for the death of her husband. However, the 15 respondent authorities did not take any action against the 6th respondent for his removal from service.
16. The proposals have been received from CE/O&M/KTPS alongwith an application from the 6th respondent seeking employment and the Legal Heir Certificate obtained from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Paloncha. As per the Legal Heir Certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Paloncha, there are four legal heirs including the 6th respondent. The 6th respondent while requesting the authorities for compassionate appointment enclosed copies of Death Certificate, educational certificates and also an affidavit duly notarized submitted by the petitioner herein and her two daughters authorizing the 6th respondent to be appointed under compassionate grounds as he is the son of the deceased.
17. After scrutinizing the proposals of the CE/O&M/KTPS, the APGENCO vide its Memo No.GM(A)/DS(PS)/AS(P)/B1- 246/2000-1, dated 23.06.2000, issued orders permitting the 6th respondent along with others to appear before the 16 Selection Committee constituted for the purpose of appointment to the post of Attender at head quarters office.
18. The respondent authorities in their counter specifically stated that the averments made by the petitioner in paragraph No.2 of the writ affidavit are incorrect, as she herself declared that the 6th respondent is her son and her two daughters have also submitted affidavits to that effect. The respondent authorities stated that no representation for appointment under compassionate grounds has come up for consideration till appointment of the 6th respondent. When the petitioner herself has given consent to appoint the 6th respondent, the question of the petitioner's waiting for appointment does not arise.
19. The 6th respondent in his counter affidavit stated that he is the sister's son of the petitioner and that when he was about 3 or 4 years old, he was taken in adoption by the petitioner and her husband, as they did not have any male children. Later, he was brought up by his adopted parents and they have provided him all the facilities including 17 education. After the death of his adopted father, the Department has paid the death benefits to the petitioner and she is also receiving the monthly family pension.
20. In the month of March, 2024, respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed additional affidavit stating that after appointment of the 6th respondent as Attender vide order dated 15.07.2000, on the objection raised by the petitioner, the respondents have issued charge-sheet dated 29.09.2005 and after conducting the enquiry, he was issued show-cause notice dated 14.02.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the 6th respondent filed W.P.No.3192 of 2006 before this Court and this Court vide its order dated 23.03.2006 granted stay of all further proceedings with regard to the said show-cause notice. The said writ petition was allowed on 27.09.2011 by setting aside the show-cause notice, dated 14.02.2006 and kept it open to the respondent authorities to issue show- cause notice and take further steps in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the respondent authorities issued Memo, dated 20.02.2005 to the 6th respondent alleging that he obtained blank signed papers from the petitioner for the 18 purpose of securing appointment on compassionate grounds. The 6th respondent submitted an explanation on 06.03.2012.
21. On consideration of the explanation, the respondent authorities came to know that the petitioner herself has given a notarized affidavit on 25.02.1999 stating that she has no objection for appointment of the 6th respondent. The name of the 6th respondent is also recorded in the registers of KTPS for the purpose of availing LTC. After considering the above said facts and in view of the fact that the 6th respondent has completed 12 years of service without any complaint, the respondent authorities decided to drop further action against the 6th respondent and accordingly proceedings dated 24.04.2012 were issued to that effect.
22. In the instant case, the petitioner has approached the respondent authorities after a lapse of more than four years after the appointment of the 6th respondent seeking his removal. The petitioner herself gave a notarized affidavit on 25.02.1999 stating that she has no interest to do job in KTPS and agreed to provide compassionate appointment to 19 the 6th respondent. Once the petitioner herself gave consent for appointment of the 6th respondent, she is estopped from questioning the same.
23. A perusal of the record discloses that before appointment of the 6th respondent, there was a conversation in between the family members of the petitioner and the petitioner and her daughters expressed no objection for appointment of the 6th respondent and later due to some family disputes, the petitioner wants to remove the 6th respondent from service and accordingly, she has approached the respondent authorities.
24. With regard to compassionate appointment, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in MALAYA NANDA SETHY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS1, wherein the Apex Court held as follows :-
"14. Thus, from the aforesaid, it can be seen that there was no fault and/or delay and/or negligence on the part of the appellant at all. He was fulfilling all the conditions for appointment on compassionate grounds 20 under the 1990 Rules. For no reason, his application was kept pending and/or no order was passed on one ground or the other. Therefore, when there was no fault and/or delay on the part of the appellant and all throughout there was a delay on the part of the department/authorities, the appellant should not be made to suffer. Not appointing the appellant under the 1990 Rules would be giving a premium to the delay and/or inaction on the part of the department/authorities. There was an absolute callousness on the part of the department/authorities. The facts are conspicuous and manifest the grave delay in entertaining the application submitted by the appellant in seeking employment which is indisputably attributable to the department/authorities. In fact, the appellant has been deprived of seeking compassionate appointment, which he was otherwise entitled to under the 1990 Rules. The appellant has become a victim of the delay and/or inaction on the part of the department/authorities which may be deliberate or for reasons best known to the authorities concerned. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, keeping the larger question open and aside, as observed herein above, we are of the opinion that the appellant herein shall not be denied appointment under the 1990 Rules.
18. If the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds as envisaged under the relevant 1 2022 SCC Online SC 684 21 policies or the rules have to be achieved then it is just and necessary that such applications are considered well in time and not in a tardy way. We have come across cases where for nearly two decades the controversy regarding the application made for compassionate appointment is not resolved. This consequently leads to the frustration of the very policy of granting compassionate appointment on the death of the employee while in service. We have, therefore, directed that such applications must be considered at an earliest point of time. The consideration must be fair, reasonable and based on relevant consideration. The application cannot be rejected on the basis of frivolous and for reasons extraneous to the facts of the case. Then and then only the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds can be achieved."
25. In the above said case, an application was made for compassionate appointment and the delay was occurred due to the negligence of the authorities. In the said circumstances, the Apex Court interfered and directed the authorities to consider the case of the appellant therein for appointment on compassionate grounds. But, in the case on hand, there is no delay. Initially, the appointment of the 6th respondent is accepted by all the family members and later after completion of more than four years, the petitioner 22 made a representation for removal of the 6th respondent. Hence, the above case is not applicable to the case on hand.
26. With regard to compassionate appointment, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.269 of 2005, dated 28.04.2025, wherein the Division Bench held as follows :-
The Writ Petitioner himself disclosed his age as 44 years in the cause title of the writ petition. The Writ Petitioner did not approach the respondents and this Court for grant of compassionate appointment within reasonable time upon attaining majority. Merely because litigation at the instance of the writ petitioner's brother viz., Ibrahim was pending, it cannot be said that it is a justifiable reason to ignore the enormous delay of few decades. Apart from this, in the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra), the Apex Court opined as under :-
Considering the second question referred to above, in the first instance, regarding whether applications for compassionate appointment could be considered, after a delay of several years, we are of the view that, in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant is claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the government employee. In such circumstances, Courts or other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such 23 prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some other source. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, as noted by this Court in HAKIM SINGH would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee."
(emphasis supplied)
27. In the above case, after a delay of several years, the petitioner therein approached the respondents for grant of compassionate appointment. In those circumstances, while setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge, allowed the W.A. by observing that a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the Government employee and also observed that the petitioner therein does not deserve any right of consideration for compassionate appointment after few decades from the date of attaining majority.24
28. Strictly speaking, the above said case is not fully applicable to the case on hand. In the instant case, the petitioner has given consent for appointment of the 6th respondent as Attender on compassionate grounds and later after four years, she made a representation seeking removal of the 6th respondent and the same cannot be entertained.
More so, without any complaint, the 6th respondent has completed nearly 15 years of service. At this stage, it would not be appropriate to interfere with the compassionate appointment of the 6th respondent. Moreover, there is no illegality or irregularity in appointing the 6th respondent under compassionate grounds. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
29. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 26.11.2025 Prv