WP/38394/2025 of Ch. Chandu Vs State of Telangana on 21 January 2026

1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, (Law Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad)

2. The Registrar General, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad

3. The Registrar (Administration),, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. (Respondent No.2 formal part in this WP) .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pteased to pass an order, direction or writ particularly in the nature of Wiit oi Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent on the representation of the Petitioner dated 01-09-2025. Consequently this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent to take immediate and necessary action and reinstate the Petitioner to the position of the Assistant (High Court of Telangana).

|.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci-, umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court m a , be pleased to pass an lnterim Directior thereby directing the Responder to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 01-09-2025 and rein,; ,te the petitioner to the position of the Assistant (High Court of Telangana). Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.VENUGOPAL, SENIOR C( UNSEL FOR SRI MOHAMMED ADAM Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Ms. M.SHALINI, GP FOR SERVICES - ll Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : SRI A.NAREN RUI) tA The Court made the following ORDER

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P,SAM KOSHY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION No.38394 of 2025 Date:21.01.2 026 Befween: Mr.Ch.Chandu And State of Telangana, rep.by its principal Secretary, Larv Dcpartrnent, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad and othcrs. Petitioncr behalf of respondents Respondents ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justicc p.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr.p.Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.Mohammed Adam. learned counsel fbr the petitioner; Ms.M.Shalini, learned Govcrnment pleader ibr Services_ll and Mr.A.Naren Rudra, lcarned Sianding Counsel lor High Court, appearing respectively and perused the record. on

2. The prescnt is the case, where the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the action on the part of the respondents in discontinuing him from service invoking the provisions ol-F.R.lg-A(a) deeming the petitioner to have resigned from service.

'l'he littre facts that wourd be relevant for the disposar of the present Writ Petition is that the father o{.the petitioner was an employee of the respondent-High C')urt working in the post of Assistant I rd rvho died in hamess on 20.04.2(\20 alter having sen'ed the respondent- gh Court lbr 24 years. Since the father of the petitioner died in harness' t ie petitioner had applied fbr compassionatc appointment and thc respondentr rfter due process andverifioationofhisclairnfoundthepctitionercligiblcllrcompassionate appointment and vide order dated 24 '03 '2021appointed hitrr rn compassionate grounds as Assistant in the category 4 (a) of Division II in :l c scrvice of High Court

4. However. the petitioner submits that aftcr having r' ' of years. the petitioner developed certain health issues irr severely affected rvith SIATICA and which made the petitic considerable tong period of time and for which he hzs heot for a long time and on account of which' the petitioner co'r regular office duties. The petitioner remained abscnt firr from 22.06.2023 onwards' Meanwhile' since there was t absence of the potitioner from service rvith elfect from ll respondent-High Court issued him tvith a show-cause explanation as to why it shoutd not be treated of the petitic from service as he remained absent for a period mort' in terms of FR '18-A (a) it will amount to deemed resi;;r show-cause notice also it appears that the petitioner tlr finally respondent No.3 issued the impugned order on I rked for a couPle slnuch as he was rer immovable lor taking treatments cl not attend to his r duty rvith effect lauthorizedlY long .06.2023 onwards, rotice seeking his rer having resigned than one vear and ation. To the said I not respond and .12.2024 passing a formal order of the service ol the petitioner deeming to have been resigned with immediate effect. It is against this order that petitioner seems to have aggrieved and filed the instant Writ petition.

5. Though the petitioner has inf'act submitted few medical certificates to justily the absence lrom duty and also in respect of his i -hearth, but, we do not find any document with cogent material produced along with the writ petition to show that the petirioner had duty intimate<I the rcspondent-High couft in respect of both firstly his health condition and secondly seeking granl ol leave ior thc period of absencc. The pctitioncr also did not justifu his conduct even at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice. However, what cannot be brushed aside is the fact that the petitioner was granted employment on compassionate basis. The basis of his employment was the death of bread winner in the family that is his father who was working with the respondents on the post of Assistant at the time would also needs to be given due weightage and 24 years of service served by the father of the petitioner to the respondent-High Court.

6. In the aloresaid t'actual backdrop, we are of the considered opinion that it would be more appropriate if the petitioner is permitted to approach respondent Nos.2 and 3 by an appropriare merc1, petition explaining his conduct so far as his absence from duty is concemed and also proving the medical ailment that he was suflering with during intermittent period. Upon such mercy petition being filed, it is expected that respondent Nos.2 and 3 {I ,t I I i i I I I I I I I ; ! ! l \

shall show some sympathy to the petitioner ignoring the fol ' ofyouth that has occurred on his parl and also considering the fact that the ! rit petitioner was appointed at a tender age of 2l years on compt sionate grounds at the samc time p,iving due consideration to the tength o i ;ervice his father rcndcred with the respondcnt-High Court and take an appri rriate decision on his mercy pctition. as expeditiously as possible' 7 . with the aforesaid observation and direction, this t\ -it Petition stands disposcd of. There shall bc no ordcr as [o costs' Pentling rnisceltaneous applications. if any' shall sta I ' closed' //TRUE COPYII SD/. AHIJI :D ABDULLA KHAN ASS STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Principal Secretary, (Law Department, Telangana lj rcretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad)

2. The Registrar General, High Court for the State of Telarr ;ana, Hyderabad.

3. The Regiskar (Administration), High Court for the State r f Telangana, Hyderabad.

4. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-II, High Court for the lj ate of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. One CC to SRI A.NAREN RUDRA, Advocate (OPUC)

6. One CC to SRI MOHAMMED ADAI\4, Advocatb topubl

7. Two CD Copies SA M/ t I t

HIGH COURT DATED:2110112026

ORDER

WP.No.38394 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS.

L (: \ :". \\ '-1,';.,r1 ).

.s $' \ \ a\ th -t_