V. Praneetha v. The State Of Telangana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.11526 of 2019 ORDER:

This Writ Petition is being disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both the parties.

This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not initiating action against the petitioner's representation dated 22.08.2017 submitted along with Succession Certificate issued by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District in S.O.P.No.75 of 2012 dt.14.06.2017, as illegal, arbitrary and sought for a consequential direction to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. Heard Sri D.V.Ramana Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-II. It has been contended by the petitioner that she is the daughter of one D.Sree Rama Krishna @ V.Sree Ramakrishna and her father was employed as Sr.Assistant at Sub-Registrar Officer, Balanagar, Ranga Reddy District. While her father was in service, he died on 28.04.

2010 due to ill health. The petitioner further submits that her father has two wives by name V.Yamuna (first wife) and her mother V.Chitra Durga (second wife) and after expiry of her father, V.Yamuna came into picture claiming that she is the legal heir of the deceased. Then the petitioner and her mother with the intervention of elders entered into a memorandum of understanding dt.22.03.

with the first wife of the deceased and her children and same was filed before the lower Court in a succession petition i.e.S.O.P.No.75 of 2012 and the lower Court vide order dated 14.06.2017 categorically held that the children of both the wives are equally entitled for death benefits. In the memorandum of understanding, it was decided that among all the children, petitioner would be entitled for compassionate appointment and other legal heirs have no objection for such consideration. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 22.08.2017 requesting the respondents to consider her case for appointment on compassionate grounds. But so far the respondents have not passed any orders on the said representation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 22.08.2017 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contends that the representation submitted by the petitioner on 22.08.2017 would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with the Rules. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, is of the considered view that this Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the

petitioner on 22.08.2017 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Rules within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 12.06.2019 dv