B.Ramesh v. Telangana Transco
t HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION NO: 11610 OF 202'l Between:
B.Ramesh, S/o B.Ramulu, Hindu, Aged about of 40 years, Occ. un -employee Fl/o Hatukargalli, Kosgi Mandal, I\,4ahaboobnagar District. ...PETITIONER AND '1 . Telangana Transco, rep. by its Chairman and N/anaging Director, Vidyut ' ' Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
2. Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd., (TSSPDCL), Rep. by its Managing Director, 6-1-50, Corporate Office, Mint. Compound, Hyderabad 500063.
3. The Chief General Manager (HRD), Southern Power Distribution Company Telangana Ltd.,( TSSPDCL), 6-1-50, Corporate Office, Mint Compound, Hyderabad-500063.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, TSSPDCL, Mahabubnagar. RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or orders directions morefully in the nature of Writ mandamus declaring that the rejection of the case of the petitioner for the post of CJLM or any other suitable post in the respondent corporation in proceedings of the Memo No. CGM (HRD/GM (Per)/AS (Per and Ser)/PO-A/85-A212018, dt.
1309-2019 of the respondents herein as illegal, improper, arbitrary, discriminatory besides being opposed to Principles of natural Justice and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in a post of CJLM/Office Subordinate or any other suitable post by granting exemption from the pole climbing test as per the proceedings No. Letter No. SE/OP/MBNR/PO/JAO/Adm.C2 /D.N0.516/11dt.23-07-2011, Letter No. SE/OP/ MBNR/PO/JAOlAdm.C2 /D.N0.123/ 19, dt.09-01-2019 ofthe 4th respondent.
direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for office Subordinate/ CJLM or any other Suitable post in the Operation Circle, Mahabubnagar in state of Telangana on par with similarly situated persons pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. KOTESWARA RAO MUMMANENI t,'"f . Coiinsel for the Respondents: SRI R.VINOD REDDY(SC FOR TS TRANSCO) ri i ii:;
Th6'Court made the following: ORDER 1:i ,l 1'
!
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHA\'I DEVI WRIT PETITION NO.I16IO OF 2021
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the rejection of the petitioner's case for the post of CJLM or any other suitable post in the respondent Corporation in Proceedings Memo No.CGM (HRDyGM (Per)/AS (Per & Ser)/PO-A/85-A2/2018 dt. I 3.09.20 1 9 of the respondents, as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. Z, Brief facts ieading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner worked as Contract Labour in the respondent Corproation and while working on the pole replacement of HG Fuse SSII, Munifa, Kosgi Section, the petitioner sustained injuries on his right leg and left hand at the time of attending to call duty. The petitioner was thereafter operated and steel rods were fixed in his hand. As the petitioner thereafter could not pass the pole climbing test, he was not considered for Junior Lineman post. The petitioner fi1ed a number of writ petitions before this Court.
/
w.P.No.1 l6l0 of 2021 3.
In W.P.No.13908 of 2019, this Court vide orders dt.15.07.2019 had directed the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Office Subordinate by duly taking into account the recommendation made by the Superintending Engineer vide l,etter dt.23.07.2011 and pass appropriate orders thereon. Thereafter, vide the impugned letter d1.13.09.2019, the case of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents. Challenging the said rejection. the present Writ Petition has been filed. 4.
Smt. K. Seshya Rajyam, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Mummaneni Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, has drawn the attention of this Court to various proceedings before this j Court and also to the order of this Court in W.P.No.13908 of 2019 dt.15.07.2019. She submitted that the fact the petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the electrical accident that occurred while the petitioner was discharging his duty has been taken into consideration by this Court in W.P.No.13908 of 2019 and the direction given to the . respondents therein was to consider the case of petitioner for \ llpointment to the post of Office Subordinate by duly taking into account the recommendation made by the Superintending Engineer vide
W.P.No.1l610 of 2021 J letter dt.23.07.201 1 . She has also drawn the attention of this Court to the recommendations of the Superintending Engineer vide letter dt.23.07.2011, wherein the cases of four persons who had sustained injuries in the electrical accidents occurred while attending to departmental works were considered for appointment. She has also drawn particular attention of this Court to the case of one A Anjaneyulu, who also sustained injuries in electrical accident and also failed in pole climbing test, but was considered and appointed as Office Subordinate in spite of his physical inability sustained in electrical accident. She submitted that the petitioner is also similarly placed and denying consideration of his case for appointment as Office Subordinate is clearly discriminatory and thus illegal and arbitrary. 5.
Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, Sri R. Vinod Reddy, reiterates the averments made in the counter affidavit and supports the impugned order. He submits that the petitioner had only sustained fracture of left hand and therefore, it cannot be said that he has sustained grievous injuries and that he has to be considered for the post of Office Subordinate. He submits that the petitioner did not keep hiniself physically fit to pass the pole climbing test and therefore, his ( (
w.P.No.l16l0 of 2021 case has been considered and rejected on this ground. As regards conversion of a contract labourer into the post of Office Subordinate, he submits that there is no scheme in the respondent organisation for conversion of a contract labourer into an Office Subordinate. He submits that such posts are kept for compassionate appointrnent of the dependents of the employees who die in hamess. He therefore submits that the case of the petitioner has been considered in accordance with the directions of this Court and the petitioner does not have any merit in this Writ Petition.
6.
Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that from the year 2007, the petitioner's case has been under consideration and on 23.07 .201I , after the directions of this Court to consider the representation of the petitioner, the Superintending Engiaeer of the respondent Corporation has recommended that the case ofthe petitioner should be considered for the post ofOffice Subordinate. All these facts have been considered by this Court in W.P.No. 13908 of 2019 and it is only thereafter that this Court has given a direction to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Office Subordinate by duly taking into account the recommendation made by \\
w.P.No.l l6l0 of 2021 the Superintending Engineer. The impugned order speaks of the pole climbing test which has not been passed by the petitioner. This order is passed clearly ignoring the directions of this Court. On earlier two occasions, when the petitioner fi1ed Writ Petitions, the respondents were directed to allow the petitioner for pole climbing test again, but in the order dt. 1 5.07 .2019, the direction was clearly to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Office Subordinate only. If the contention of the respondents that there is no scheme of converting a contract labourer into Office Subordinate is to be accepted to be true, it is not known as to how the case ofone Mr. A.Anjaneyulu has been considered and he has been appointed as an Office Subordinate.
Therefore, this contention of the respondents does not find any merit. The respondents have already considered the case of similarly placed person who has also sustained injuries in electrical accident and has been given Office Subordinate post in spite of his physical disability due to the accident. In view thereof, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner as Offrce Subordinate in any post which is vacant subject to his fulfilment of other conditions, such as \'\ educational qualifi cations, etc.
W.P.No.l l6l0 of 2021 7.
The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. 8'
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed.
SD/-K.ONESIM DEPUTY REGISTRAR ' i,i SECTION OFFICER . The Chairman and Managing Director,Telangana Transco, Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
. The Managing Director, Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd., (TSSPDCL), 6-1-50, Corporate Office, Mint. Compound, Hyderabad 500063.
. The Chief General Manager (HRD), Southern Power Distribution Company Telangana Ltd.,( TSSPDCL), 6-1-50, Corporate Office, Mint Compound, Hyderabad-500063.
//TRUE COPY// \ To, ntending Engineer, Operation Circle, TSSPDCL, lvlahabubnagar. SRl. KOTESWARA RAO MUMMANENI Advocate IOPUCI SRI R.VINOD REDDY(SC FOR TS TRANSCO), Advocate One CC to ,One CC to .. The Superi cop Spare Copy.
SW-+'
i]
HIGH COURT ri"$rr,., r ' . ?.i-: .-,.
].
D:2310812022 /.;:
[5 5EP l[TL bi ID q{'
WP N