Smt Kavitha, v. Divisional Engineer

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.3713 of 2013 ORDER:

This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the request of the petitioners to provide job either of them under the Scheme of Dependent of Board Employee died in service as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and issue a consequential direction to the respondent to act in accordance of law and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2.

Heard Sri M.A.Mujeeb, Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Zakir Ali Danish, Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

3.

It has been contended by the petitioners that the 1st petitioner is the daughter of Sri K.Sarva Reddy and the 2nd petitioner is the wife of Sri K.Sarva Reddy, who was working as Lineman in O.P. Section of Ieeja in O.P. Division, Wanaparthy, Mahaboobnagar Circle i.e., the respondent Corporation and the said K.Sarva Reddy expired while discharging his duties on 12.06.2002 and thereafter, the petitioners have submitted a representation to the respondents seeking appointment on compassionate grounds and the same was acknowledged by the respondents.

4.

The grievance of the petitioners is that though the respondents have acknowledged the receipt of the application submitted by them

AKS,J W.P.No.3713 of 2013 seeking employment under compassionate grounds, they have not passed any orders on the said representation. 5.

Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate grounds within a reasonable period of time.

6.

Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents contends that the case of the petitioners would be considered, if only they submit a representation afresh and the same would be considered, in accordance with law, and appropriate orders would be passed. 7.

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the petitioners to submit a representation afresh within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon such representation being received, the respondent authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four (04) months thereafter.

8.

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J Date: 27th August, 2019 KL