K. Aruna v. The State Of Telangana, And 5 Others

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.2640 OF 2020 O R D E R :

This writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both the parties.

Heard Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for services II. This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :- "...............WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the 1st respondent for not considering the petitioner's case as requested by the 3rd respondent in his letter No.3773/CPR&RF/C2/2015, dated 22.10.2018 even after elapse of more than (15) months as arbitrary, unjust and violation of Art.14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently the petitioner pray this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to provide employment on compassionate grounds for the post of attender along with all consequential benefits............"

It has been contended by the petitioner that her mother was working as Attender with the respondents and she has expired on 27.10.2006. After her expiry, petitioner had submitted an application on 05.09.2007 seeking compassionate appointment to respondents 4 and 6. Once again on 19.02.2018 petitioner made a representation to the 4th respondent-the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad who inturn sent a letter dated 17.07.2018 informing the 3rd respondent that the petitioner had made an application within one year from the date of death of her mother. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent sent a letter dated 22.10.2018 recommending the case of the petitioner to the 1st respondent. But so far, the 1st respondent has not passed any orders on the

proposals sent by the Chief Executive Officer-4th respondent and the Commissioner-3rd respondent.

Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the 1st respondent to consider the proposals sent by the respondents 3 and 4 and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable period. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had contended that since the proposals sent by the respondents 3 and 4 are pending before the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent would consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

This Court, having considered the rival submissions, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the proposals sent by the respondents 3 and 4 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a reasonable period preferably within two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed.

__________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,J Date: 06.10.2020 dv