13302l

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

WRIT PETITION Nos.2288 and 35834 ot 2022

WRIT PETITION NO: 2288 OF 2022

Between:

Thota Jaswanth, S/o. Sri Late Thota Venkateswara Rao, Aged About 22 Years,
Occ.Un-employee, R/o. H.No 8-1-221, Sumitrasai Agency Building, 3rd Floor, KSP
Road, Beside Bhadradri Bank, Paloncha, Bhadradri Kothagudem Dist - 507 115.
...PETITIONER
AND

1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Power and Energy
Department, Secretariat at Hyderabad -500 004 (TS)
2. The Chairman and Managing Director, Telangana State Power Generation
Corporation Limited, And TS TRANSCO, Vidyut Soudha, Khairathabad,
Hyderabad - 500 004 (TS).
3. The Chief Engineer, O and M, Kothagudem Thermal Power Station- Vll Strue
Paloncha, Bhadradri Kothagudem Dist-507'l 1 5.
4. The Divisional Engineer, Technical/Director (HR) KTPS, Paloncha, Bhadradri
Kothagudem Dist-507 1 15.
5. The Chief General Manager/ADMruS, Vidyut Soudha, Khairathabad,
Hyderabad - 500 004 OS).
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 o't lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue any appropriate Writ order or direction essentially one in the
nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Lr.No.CE/(O&MyKTPS-
V||sIage/DS/ADM/PO/ADM/AM(HR)/8.4/D.No .286121, Dated 27 -03-2021, is as
illegal, unauthorized, arbitrary, contrary to Law, and in violation of Under Article
14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and in violation of principles of Natural
Justice, and against the scheme of compassionate appointment, vide
B.P.Ms.No.'l 19, dated 10-02-1982, being in violation of the rights of the petitioner
as enshrined under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of lndia and in
violation of Principles of Natural Justice, Consequently set aside the same, with a
further direction to the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner in the appropriate
post in terms of B.P.Ms.No.119, dated. 10-02-1982.
--,-,!.z
l

lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petitron under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in
the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct
the Respondents to re-consider the claim of the Petitioner for appointrnent as per
the terms of scheme of compassionate appointment, vide B.P.Ms.No. l 19,
dated.10.02.1982for any appropriate post, Pending disposal of the Writ Petition.
lA NO: 2 OF 2022
Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in
the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
suspend the Operation of the impugned Lr.No.CE/(O&MyKTPS-VIlstage/DS/
ADM/POiADM/AM(HR)/8.4/D.No.286/21, Da1ed.27.O32021 issued by the 3rd
Respondent, Pending disposal of the Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. C. RAGHU, SENIOR COUNSEL

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SERVICES - lV

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5: SRI G. VIDYA SAGAR, SENIOR

COUNSEL FOR SMT V. UMA DEVI, SC FOR TSGENCO

WRIT PETITION NO: 35834 OF 2022

Between:
B.Arvind Reddy, Son of late B.Ammi Reddy, Ex-FM-Gr-lV, aged about 26 years,
Occ. Unemployee, Resident of H.No.248, PO Pedampet, Antergoan Mandal,
Peddapalli District.
...PETITIONER
AND

1 The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Energy,

Power and Environment Department, T.S. Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2. The Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Ltd., Represented by its
Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyuth Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
3. The Director (HR), Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Ltd.,
$gpresented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyuth Soudha,
Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
4 The Superintendent Engineer (O&M), RTS-B, TS GENCO, Ramagundem,
Peddapalli District.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Articre 226 of rhe constitution of rndia praying that in
the
circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith,
the High court may be
preased to issue a writ, order
or direction, more particurarry one in the
nature of
writ of Mandamus' decraring the action
of the respondents in not providing
 J

-- employment to the petitioner under compassionate grounds and further rejecting

his case by the 4th respondent vide impugned Letter No.SE/O&MiRTS(DE(AT&P)/
DM/HR/JPO/F.PFtD.No.57',lt21 dated 28.06.2021 is totally arbitrary, irregular,
besides illegal and contrary to law, against principles of natural
justice and against

very scheme of providing employment under compassionate grounds besides

Articles 14,19 and 21 of the constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the
same with a further direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner in
appropriate post as per eligibility under the scheme of compassionate appointment
due to the untimely death of father of petitioner while in service
tA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in
the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct
to the respondents to reconsider the case of petitioner for appointment in
appropriate post as per eligibility under the scheme of compassionate appointment
due to the untimely death of father of petitioner while in service, pending disposal
of the Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P. RAVI SHANKER

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SERVICES - lV

Counsel for the Respondent Nos'2 to 4: SRI G. VIOYA SAGAR' SENIOR

COUNSEL FOR SMT V. UMA DEVI, SC FOR TSGENCO

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

-

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

WRIT PETITION Nos.2288 & 35834 of 2022

COMMON ORDER:

1 Since thr: issue involvcd in both the writ petitions

is onc and thc same, they were heard together and

being disposed ol by way of this common order.

2. Ilcard Srr C.Raghu, Learned Senior Counsel

appearing lrrr the petitioner in W.P.No.228B ol 2022

and Sri P.Rzrvi Shankar, I-earned Counsel appearing

for the petitioner in W.P.No.35834 of 2022, and

learned Government Pleader for Services-IV appearing

lor respondent No.1, and Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned

Senior Counsel for respondents 2 to 4 in W.P.No.2288

of 2023; Ms.V.Uma Devi, Learned Counsel appearing

for the respondents 2 to 4 tn W.P.No.35384 of 2022

 2
SKJ
W P No 2288 of 2022 &
WP No 35384 of 2A22
I
I

- i
i
The case of the p etitioner in W.P.N0.2288 of 2022

.J The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that father of the petitioner viz., Thota

Venkateswar Rao died on 1O.09.20 19 whiie he was in

servrce as Dozer Operator in KTpS O&M, leaving

behind the petitioner, his brother and mother as his

legal heirs, who are the dependants of on the deceased.

After death of his father the petitioner made a

representation to the respondents authorities [or

providing employment, on compassionate grounds,
but the same was rejected on2Z.O3.2O21 through the
impugned letter on the ground that the mother of the

petitioner viz., Thota Laxmi is receiving family pension

of Rs.41,823 / - and the grandmot}.er of the petitioner

also receiving pension of Rs.3O,OOO /- per month, and

hence the dependant family members of the deceased

. employee are not in indigent condition as per Clause

3
 3
.SK,/
W.P No 22BB of 2022 &
WP No.35384 of 2022

(i) under B. P M s. No. 1 !) dated

1 10 .O2 . 1982 , which
stipulates thal the dcpcndalts of the deceased

employee, wl-ro dies in harness leaving behind his

family in indigcnt circumstances only, are entitled for

employment undcr compassionate grounds which 1S

against very scheme of formulated for providing

compassionatc. appointmcr-rt to the dependants of the

deccased emplovcc

The case of the petitioner in W.P.No.35834 of 2022

4. The lcartrcd Counscl rrppearing for the petitioner

submits that father o[ thc petitioner vLz B.Ammi

Reddy died on 2O.O4.2O2O while he was in service as

Foreman Grade-lV in Coal Plant Operation, Office of

Superintendent Engineer /O&M/RTS-B Ramagundam,

leaving behind the petitioner, his mother and two

sisters as his legal heirs, u,ho are the dependants of on

thc deceased. After dcatlr of his father ,the petitioner

 4
SK,J
W P No.22E8 of 2422 &
WP No 35364 af 2022

I
I
l
- I

made a representation to the respondent No 3 on

02.lO.2O2O through proper channel, seeking

appointment on compassionate grounds, who in turn

forwarded the sarne to the respondent No.4.

Subsequently, the petitioner submitted the application

for job under the scheme of employment of the

dependant, duly enclosing the relevart documents,

such as No-objection certificate from the lamily

Members, AS sought for by the respondent No.4.

While it being so, the petitioner received the impugned

letter rejecting the application of the petitioner stating
that under Clause 3 (i) under B.P.Ms.No.119 dated
1O.02.1982 t!l,e dependants of the deceased employee,

who dies in harness leaving behind his family 1n

indigent circumstances only entitled for employment

under compassionate ground and since the mother of

the petitioner is receiving family pension and the

 SKJ
W P.No 2288of 2022 &
WP No 35384 of ZA22

petttloner is not erltillcd for employment under

compasslonat() grounds u hich is arbitrary, irregular
and against very schcmr. formulated for providing
compasslonate appotntment to the dependants of the

deceased employee

5. The learned Counsel fbr the petitioners in both

the petitions further subrnits that mere sanction of
family pension to the u,ilt' of the deceased employee
cannot come in the u:?y of giving/providing
employment under thc compassionate grounds and the

Hon'ble Apex Court timc and again reiterated the said

principle. The rejection of the applications of the

petitioners for appointment on compassionate grounds

is \rothing but circumventing the rules and also

\
frustrating the scheme of compassionate appointment
which was formulated to mitigate the loss or hardship
 6
---
SKJ
W P No 2288 ci 2022 &
WP No 35384 or 2022

caused to the deceased family and requested to ailow

both the writ petirions.

6. The Learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioners, in support of their contention, relied on the

following judgments:

1 Commissioner of Police, and. others Vs. K.pad.majal

t. Gouind. Prako'sh Vertna us. LIC of India and. others r

J. State of Hir7.o.chal prad.esh qnd another ys. Shashi Kumo]r ,

4. Andhra Bank (now tlnlon Bc,nk oJ lr.dia Vs. p,Rajashekarl

5. Canarq. Bank Vs M.Mqhesh Kumq.r,

7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

respondents submits that the application of the
petitioner in WP No.228g of 2022 for providing
compasstonate appointment was- forwarded to the

1. 2013 (3) ALT 153

2. (2005) 10 scc 289 ,)

3. (2019) 3 SCC 6s3

4. 2021 SCC ONLTNE AP 3109 I
5 2015 (7) SCC 412
a--

SKJ
W P No 2288 of2022 &
WP No 35384 of 2022

Vigilance Wing ol 'tSGtrNCO and after conducting

enquiry submittecl its report stating that the

grandmother of the petrtioner in W.P.No.228B of 2022

is receiving a lamily pension of Rs.30,000 /- per month,

and mother of the petitioner is receiving family

pension of Rs.41,823 l- consequent on death of the

father of the lletitioner erncl therclore the petitioner in

W.P.No.2288 <tf 2022 is not cntitled for compassionate

appointment in terms of B.P.Ms.No.1 19 dated

to.o2.t982.

8. The learned Counsel appearing for the

respondents submits that the petitioner in

W.P.No.35384 of 2022 is not entitled for appointment
on compassionate grounds as the wife of the deceased-

employee is receiving lamily pension and the

respondent No.4 passed rhe impugned order basing on
 SKJ
W P No 2288 of 2022 &
WP No 35384 of 2422

-
the B.P.Ms.No.119, dated 10.02.1982 and requestcd to

dismiss the writ petition.

9. The learned counscl for the respondents 1n

support of their contention relied on the following

judgment:
6 Stote of Himo.chal Pradesh Vs. Shashi Kumal

10. After hearing both sides this Court is of the

considered vier.r,, that in both the cases the
respondents-Corporation rejected cases of the

petitioners herein for providing appointments on

compassionate grounds, on the ground that in one

case spouse and mother of the deceased-employee

receiving family pension and in another case the

spouse of the deceased-employee is receiving family

pension. The respondents rejected the claim of the

6. 2019 (3) SCC 653

 I
SK,J
-- W P Na 2288 of 2022 &
WP No.35384 of 2022

petitioners in terms Clause 3 (i) of B.P.Ms.No. 1 19

dated 1O.O2.1982, as the petitioners are not in
indigent conditiorr.

Clause il (i) of B.P.Ms.No.119 dated l0.O2.l9a2

reads as follorvs:

A child i.e. a son, a daughter or spouse of a deceased

Board Dmployee tuho dics in hamess leauing his famiLy in
indigent circumstances ruhile in seruice be appointed as
LDC or equiualent post, Attender or Record Assistanl
without the metlict of entploymenl excharule, subjecl to the
condition that there beitq tto other eanuttg rnentber in the

family"

I i. In the above sard clause there is no mention

about receiving of famiiy pension is a bar for providing

appointment on compassionate grounds to the

dependants of the deceased-employee. Moreover,

Clause-2 of B.P.Ms.No. 119 dated 10.02.1982, reads

as follows:

!:-j-. i :,: r: : ,:.::*

1---
 10
SKJ
W P No 2288 of 2022 &
WP No 35384 of 2022

!
I

I
" The scheme of proutding emploAment to
dependants of deceased Board emploAee while in
seruice u)as reconsidered by the A.P.E.E. Board
and it was decided that that instead of follotuing a
policg different from State Gouernment the orders
of the State Gouernment in the matter shall be
folloued in Toto utith the follouLing prouisions ,

follouted bg the Gouernment.

il No relaxation in Dducational qualifications or
age need to giuen in such cases
ii) The claim utith eligibihty for employment
should be uithin One gear from the date of
death.

12. The G.O.Ms.No.687, General Administration

Department dated 03.10.1977 was issued by the then

Government of Andhra Pradesh, formulating the Rules

for providing appointment on compassionate grounds,

which was adopted by the Government of Telangana,

and in subsequent amendments made from time to

\.time to the said G.O, there is no provision to take into
\'
 l1
SKJ
W F No 2288 of 2022 &
WP No 35384 ol 2022

account ol the famill. pension u,hile providing

empioyment to the dependants of the deceased
empioyee who died in harness.

13. The Division of this Court in Commissioner of

Police and others Vs. K.Padmaja (atpra l), at para
No.9, held that:
"........Yet anotlter deJena: is tuken bg the learnetl corrnsel thct
as the tuife of the deci'osed is getting family pension, ttte
appLicant [s not entitled fctr cornpossionate appolntnrcrLl. But the
sotne cannot be ctccepted. Merely because Jamilg pension is be
accepted. Merely becausc liLnilg pension is beiry paid tr: the
LULfe o[ the deceased, th€ s(rme is not a ground to depiue the
benefit of compassionate oppointment und.er this scheme notifi.etl
by the Gouentment for the <:hildren of the deceased utho died in
harness".

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govind pro,ksh

Vermq. Vs. LIC of India q.nd others (Supra 2), at par
No.6, held that:

" In our uiew, it was uholly ireleuant for the department

authoities and the leamed_ Single Jud.ge to take
into
 -i
12
SK J
lA/ F No 2288 af 2022 &
WF No 35384 ot 2022

i
I
I

- j
cot'tsideration the amoutll ttthich utas beiry patd as fcLmily
pension to the uidotu of the deceased (uthich amoun|
according to tle appellant, has nout been reduced to holfl
and other amounts paid on account of tenninal benefits
under the Rules. The scher'rc of contpassionate
o"ppointment is ouer antl aboue tuhateuer ts admissible to
the legal representatiues of the deceased etnploAee as
benefits of seruice tt,hich one gets on the death of the
emplogee. Tterefore, compassionate appointment cannot
be refused on the ground that anA member of the familA
receiued the amounts admissible under the Rules"

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court rn Canara Bank and

dnother Vs. M.Mahesh Kumar (supra 5/, at para
Nos. 19 to 22, held that:

"19. Insofar as the contention of the appellant-bank that

since the respondent's family is getting family pension and
also obtained the terminal benefits, in our view, is of no
consequence in considering the application for
compassionate appointment. Clause 3.2 of 1993 Scheme says
that in case the dependant of deceased employee to be

offered appointment is a minor, the bank may keep the offer

of appointment open till the minor attains the age of

I
--

13
SK,J
W P No 2288 of 2A22 &
A/P No 35384 af 2022

mojotit\'. Thi.s tyotrltl rrttlit:ate that granting of terntinal

beneJits is <tf no (.()t1.\cqLprrce bec,ause even if terminal
bene/it is given. if tht' ultytlicant is a minor, the bank would
keep tht' .tl4)ointfietlt opcn till the minor attains the
majori t.v.

20. In Balbir Kaur & Anr. vs. Steel Authority of India

Ltd. & Ors.. (2000) 6 SCC 493, while dealing with the
applicatittrt nuda h1, the widow for employment on
compas.\iotlut(' !ruttrntl opplicable to the Stcel Authoriq, of
[ndia. cotttcntiorr t'cri;t,tl rus that since she i.s entitled to get
the bencJit under l;unrilt, Benefit Scheme assuring monthly
payment to tha.fintil.,- o./ rlte deceased employee, the request

for contlussionata u1tltointment cannot be acceded to.

Rijecting tlut .'ontttlti()n in paragraph ( 13), this Court held

as under: -

" 13. ....But in our view this Family Benefit Scheme

cannot in ant' v ot: be equated with the benefit of

cotnpassionate appointments. The sudden jerk in the

fanily b1, rea.son of the death of the breadearner can

only l2s absorbed by some lump-sum amount being
to
- this is
made ovuilobli' the family rather
utlJortunatc but tlti.; i,s a reality. The/beling of security
 \-;
14
SK J
W P lrt 22EB af 2A22 &
l /P No 3533,1 ot 2022

-r \{
I
I

I
clrqts to zero ot1 lha dealh ctf' thc l,r't'adeantct ond
insecurity thereafter reigns and it is ctt that .jutlclurc if
some lump-sum amount is ntade available with a
co nrpa ss io nat e a p po in I m e nt. th e gr i c ['s I r i c k e n .ft r nt i l.t,

may find some solace to the menlal agonv attd ntanage

its affairs in the normal course ofevents. It is not that

monetary benefit would be the replacement of the

breadearner, but that would tmdoubtetllv bring sr.tme

solace to the situation. "

21. Referring to Steel Authority o/ lndiu [-td. s case. High

Court has rightly held lhat the granl o/ /intil.t pcusi()n L,t'

payment of terminal beneJits canrutt ba trcate(l us o

substitute for providing employment as.sistance. The High

Court also observed that it is not the case o['the bank that
the respondents' .family is having any olher ittconte lo negdte

their claim for appointment on compassknatc ground.

22. Considering the scope of the Scheme 'Dying in Harness

Scheme 1993' then in force and the facts and circumstances
of the case, the High Court rightly directed the appellant-
bank to reconsider the claim of the respondent for
compassionate appointmenl in accordance with law and as
---
t5
SK,J
W.P.N?.228B of 2A22 &
WP No 35384 at 2022

pcr the Sclterna (19<)J) tltctt in existence. I|'e do not /ind uny
reason worranlin,q ittIatf ct crtce "

16, The judgment rclii:cl on by the learned Senior

Counsel for the respondents in State of Himqchal
Pradesh qnd another Vs. Sasht Kutnar (supra 6f
does not apply to the iristalt case as the respondent
therein questioned the policv of the Government of

Hmachal Pradesh in lixrr-rg the income slab for

providing compassionatc- appointment. Para No.9 of

the said judgment reads as follows:

" Paru ,Yo. l0 of tlrc ptlitt, sripulales thot the government has
inlroduced a number oJ u,elJure measures, which have made a
significant difference ro rlrc financial position of families of
government servants who die in harness. Hence, the policy stipulates
that benefits receiyed b\ the famil.v on account of those
v,alfure mea.;urcs " mu.t' ht ktpt in lieu" u hile considering ca,se s o.f

employment ossi.ttance Ltn t:ompassionate grounds. The poticy

proceeds to enumerotc the t,t,l.fite tlleasures u,hich, on the date of ils
lormulatiort x,ere avuifuhlr to families of deceasecl employees.
 16
S(.J
W P No 22BB ot 2A22 &
WP No 3538,1 af 2A22

l'urugru1i't ll)ttt ol tht l)ttlit'.r, vhith hos a ht'uring in this L,r;,' it rn

\
t he.fol I tnr in g Ie rm.s :

"(c) The provision of employment assistance v'as inlroduced in lgjB

and since lhen a number of welfore measures have been introduccd h.t

the Govt. u,hich made significant dffirence in the fnancial posilton of

the families of the Govt. servanls dying in harnass. |'hc hcne./ir
received by the family on account of these measures may be kept in
view while considering cases of employment assistance on
compassionote grounds. Such measures, in brief, which are ot pre.rent

uvuilablc to tfu /itmilie.s rl the det.eu.rctl cmphtacs ura tr.s Ltndcr

17. In the State of Himachal pradesh, the said

Scheme contemplates that payments which have bcen

received on account of welfare measures provided by

the State including family pension are to be taken into

account and hxed the income limits for providing

compassionate appointment. But in the State of
Telangana no such provision was mad.e in the

compassionate appointments scheme issued in

G.O.Ms.No.687, General Administration Department,

+:--:i*':.frl
--
17
SKJ
W P lno 2288 of 2022 &
WP No 35384 of 2022

datc 03.IO.1977 and thc sarne was also not mentioned

in thc B.P.Ms.No.119, d:.rted 10.O2.1982.

18. In view ol the same. the impugned Orders passed

by the respondents viz., Lr.No.CE/(O&M)/KTPSVII

Stage/DS I ADM I Po I ADM/AM(HR)/8.4/D.NL.286 / 2t
dated 27.03.202 1 passecl by the respondent No.3 in

W.P.No.2288 ol 2022; zrr-rd Lr.No.SE/(O&M)/RTS DE

(AT&P) / DM/lJR/JPo/ Ir Plt/D No.57 1 /2 I dated

28.06.2021 passed by the respondent No.4 in

W.P.No.35834 of 2022 ierc liable to be set aside and

accordingly set aside.

19. With the above lindings, both the writ petitions

are allowed and the respondents are directed to

reconsider the cases of the petitioners for providing

apporntments on compassionate grounds without

taking into account ol the famrly pension being
 \,,i
40
sKJ
W P No 2288 of 2022 &
WP Na 35384 of 2022

-
received by the spouse or mother of the deceased-
employees, within twelve (12) weeks lrom the date of

receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as

to costs.

20. Miscellaneous pctitions pending if any shall

stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs

SD/. G, SIREESHA
ASSISTANT REGIST
//TRUE COPY//
SECTIO OFFICER

One fair copy to THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

(For His Lordship's Kind Perusal)
To,
1.The Principal Secretary, Power and Energy Department, State of Telangana,
Secretariat at Hyderabad -500 004 (TS)
2. The Chairman and Managing Director, Telangana State Power Generation
Corporation Limited, And TS TRANSCO, Vidyut Soudha, Khairathabad,
Hyderabad - 500 004 (TS).
3. The Chief Engineer, O&M, Kothagudem Thermal Power Station- Vll Stage
Paloncha, Bhadradri Kothagudem Dist-507 115.
4. The Divisional Engineer, Technical/Director (HR) KTPS, Paloncha, Bhadradri
Kothagudem Dist507 1 15.
5. The Chief General Manager/ADMA/S, Vidyut Soudha, Khairathabad,
Hyderabad - 500 004 [rS).
6. The Director (HR), Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Ltd.,
Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyuth Soudha,
Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
7. The Superintendent Engineer (O&M), RTS-B, TS GENCO, Ramagundem,
Peddapalli District.
8. 11 L.R. Copies. '
9. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company
Affairs, New Delhi.
10. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court for the
State of Telangana at Hyderabad-
1 1 . One CC to Sri. C. Raghu Advocate [OPUC]
12.Two CCs to GP for Services-lV, High Court for the State of Telangana at
Hyderabad. [OUT]
13.Two CCs to GP for Energy, High Court for the State of Telangana at
Hyderabad. [OUT]
'14.One CC to Smt V. Uma Devi, SC FOR TSGENCO [OPUC]
15.One CC to Sri P. Ravi Shanker, Advocate [OPUC]
16.Two CD Copies
CHR 16
GJP OHS
 j

HIGH COURT

DATED:3110312023

o
,','.

.S'
L

it,}
a\\
.$' :
,1r,. \5
v .s"
i-l/
.",- l /

:t ,. o'l+;:)'
'-:-;-;:)'

COMMON ORDER

W.P.Nos.2288 and 35834 of 2022

ALLOWING THE BOTH WRIT PETITIONS

WITHOUT COSTS

t4
csB,\ \,e
\b\"^rn