Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin set aside an order directing compassionate appointment nearly 14 years after the death of an employee, and ruled that such a belated claim defeated the very object of the scheme.
The panel was hearing a writ appeal filed by the senior scientist and head, JVRHRS, Malyala, and Sri Konda Laxman Telangana Horticultural University challenging the single judge’s order. The writ plea was filed by K. Bhagyalaxmi. The university contended that the petitioner’s only authenticated application reached the authorities in March 2013, well beyond the one-year limit prescribed under a government order.
The document said to bear the date of September 20, 2011, was introduced belatedly and exhibited signs of fabrication including an interpolated dispatch-register entry and an endorsement signed in 2014. It was argued that compassionate appointment was a narrowly carved exception intended to provide immediate relief and that granting appointment after such an inordinate delay would frustrate the scheme’s purpose.
The writ petitioner maintained she submitted her application within time and relied on a subsequent university communication to support her claim. The single judge had accepted that plea and directed appointment. The panel found significant indicators of fabrication in the purported 2011 application and noted that the only contemporaneous record supported receipt of an application in March 2013. The panel held that a direction for compassionate appointment in 2025 in respect of a death that occurred in 2011 ran contrary to settled law laid down by the Supreme Court. The panel emphasised that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but an emergency relief whose object is immediacy. Accordingly, the panel allowed the writ appeal and dismissed the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment.
Student gets bail in scam case
The Telangana High Court granted bail to a student from Visakhapatnam accused in a large-scale investment fraud linked to ‘SSLS’ ventures. The judge was hearing a criminal petition filed by Kancharla Upendra seeking release from custody in a case registered by the Cyberabad economic offences wing (EOW) police alleging cheating, misappropriation of funds and violations under the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act.
According to the prosecution, the de facto complainant invested Rs.19.40 crore in purported real-estate projects run by the accused and others, based on assurances of returns under various MoUs, but the amounts were not repaid, and the funds were allegedly diverted. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the complainant did not invest in any SSLS real-estate venture, but in SSLS Creations, a film production activity whose movie remained unreleased. It was pointed out that the petitioner entered into an MOU in August granting a three-month period, yet the criminal complaint was filed prematurely in September.
It was argued that the petitioner was in jail since October and the material part of the investigation was complete, and continued incarceration was unwarranted. Considering the stage of investigation, the duration of custody, and the MOU timeline reflected in the record, the judge granted conditional bail to the petitioner.
