DUBBA SRAVAN Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant had absented himself though the matter was passed over twice. As a result, the same has been listed today for dismissal. Today, learned counsel appears and states that he could not login into the hearing on the last date due to network problems.

(2.) The present appeal is directed against an order dated 30.09.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby, a writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner (W.P.No.21610 of 2019) praying inter alia for issuing directions to the respondents Nos.2 to 4/Municipal Authorities to cancel the appointment of his younger brother, respondent No.5 on the post of Junior Assistant in the respondents No.2 to 4/Municipal Corporation, that was granted on compassionate grounds, upon the demise of the father of the parties on 12.12.2017, and to consider the him for appointment as a Driver.

(3.) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. Sri Dubba Gangaram, father of appellant and the respondent No.5 was employed as a Driver in the respondents No.3/Municipalility. He expired on 12.12.2017 while in service. On an application moved by the respondent No.5, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds on the demise of the father, the respondents No.2 to 4 issued proceedings dated 31.01.2019, appointing him as a Junior Assistant. Aggrieved by the said order of appointment, the appellant filed the subject writ petition stating inter alia that the respondent No.5 ought not to have been granted appointment on compassionate grounds and that the mother of the parties had colluded with the respondent No.5. Without intimating the appellant and without obtaining his consent, the mother had approached the respondents No.2 to 4 for appointment of the respondent No.5 on compassionate grounds. It has been observed in the impugned order that in terms of the compassionate appointment scheme of the respondents No.2 to 4/ Municipal Corporation, a spouse/dependant family member of the deceased, who expires while in harness, is entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds. The said scheme is silent as to which member of the family should be given preference. Noting that the appellant/writ petitioner is already married and living separately whereas, the widow of late Dubba Gangaram is living at some other place along with the younger son/the respondent No.5, the court held that it cannot be said that the appointment of the respondent No.5 made on compassionate grounds, is either illegal or in contravention of the scheme.