[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
T. Jeevana Siri vs The State Of Telangana on 25 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL No.354 of 2026
Dated: 25.03.2026
Between:
T.Jeevana Siri
...Appellant
and
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Medical, Health & Family Welfare Department,
Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat,
Hyderabad - 500 022,
and 3 others.
...Respondents
JUDGMENT:
Learned counsel Sri Shreyas Reddy.Y appears for the appellant.
Sri Santhapur Satyanarayana Rao, learned Government Pleader
for Services-I, appears for the respondents.
2. The present writ appeal is preferred against the judgment dated
17.02.2026 passed by the learned writ court dismissing W.P.No.18895
of 2024 preferred by the appellant herein.
3. Upon the death of the appellant's father in harness on 17.07.2018
while working as a Male Nursing Orderly at MGM Hospital, Warangal,
the family of the appellant obtained a certificate from the revenue
authorities recognising them as dependants on 04.09.2018 and also got a
declaration from the civil court in O.S.No.115 of 2018 of their legal
heirship for the purposes of compassionate appointment vide judgment
dated 30.07.2019. Thereafter, the widow i.e., the appellant's mother
applied for compassionate appointment of her daughter i.e., the
appellant, on 07.09.2018. The appellant's mother contracted a second
marriage on 26.11.2021. Thereafter, the appellant and her brother
obtained another decree in O.S.No.148 of 2022 declaring them as legal
heirs of the deceased. A family member certificate was also issued on
17.01.2023 reflecting the subsequent developments. The application for
compassionate appointment of the appellant sponsored by her mother
was rejected on 05.12.2023 on the grounds that the appellant's mother is
a government employee and the family is not in financial distress and
also eligible for death-cum-retiral benefits of the deceased. An
application was preferred by the appellant on 15.12.2023 seeking
reconsideration of her case on the grounds that the appellant's mother
incurred second marriage and a decree was obtained in O.S.No.148 of
2022 about their legal heirship after the second marriage of her mother.
That the socio-economic status certificate and die-in-harness certificate
entitled her claim to be considered independently. The same was
rejected by respondent No.3 on 02.07.2024, which was under challenge
in the writ petition.
4. The learned writ court dismissed the writ petition on the ground
that the scheme of compassionate appointment provides that if there is
no other earning member, a dependent suffering from indigent condition
would be employed in Government service. The scheme requires an
application within one year from the date of death. The application
initially filed was rejected on tenable grounds. Thereafter, no fresh
application can be entertained. The immediacy of the hardship has
ceased to exist. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present
appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the decision of
the Apex Court in Saurabh Chourasiya v. The State of Madhya
Pradesh (SLP (Civil) Diary No.26461 of 2022, dated 27.08.2024). It is
submitted that the rejection of the petitioner's claim therein was on
hyper technical grounds which have been frowned by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
6. However, a perusal of the decision in the case of Saurabh
Chourasiya (supra) shows that the application for compassionate
appointment was made after seven years of the death immediately upon
attaining majority by the petitioner. It was rejected on the ground that as
not presented within time. The Apex Court in those circumstances held
that the rejection of the case of the petitioner was on hyper technical
grounds. He had filed the application immediately after attaining
majority. In the peculiar facts, the competent authority was, therefore,
directed to again consider the application of the petitioner on merit
without rejecting the same on the ground of being filed beyond seven
years of the death of the bread earner.
7. The present case is not one of the appellant applying after some
delay on attaining the majority. The application sponsoring the
appellant's name was made by her mother after the death of the
appellant's father though after the one year period but before the
appellant's mother incurred the second marriage. The claim of the
appellant was rejected on the ground that her mother was a government
employee and the family was not in financial distress. After rejection of
the claim on 05.12.2023, the appellant has filed an application seeking
reconsideration of her case independently. The application is after
considerable lapse of the time stipulated for making the application.
The family has apparently survived for about five years till the review
application was made. In such circumstances, the learned writ court was
right in holding that once the claim of the appellant made earlier was
rejected on tenable grounds, a second claim by the same party and that
too much after the stipulated period cannot be entertained especially
when the family has survived the immediate distress..
8. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has
placed reliance upon a recent decision rendered by this Court in The
Senior Scientist and Head, JVRHRS v. Smt. K.Bhagyalaxmi
(W.A.No.814 of 2025, dated 21.11.2025), where such a claim was
rejected on grounds of delay.
9. Upon consideration of rival submissions of the parties and the
materials placed on record, we, therefore, do not find any error in the
impugned order warranting interference in letters patent jurisdiction.
10. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
25.03.2026
vs
