IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 18644 of 2008 Between: Vislavath Thirupathi S/o. Late Vislavath Gobriya R/o.H.No.1-2-21, S.T. Colony, Ramagundam (P.O.), Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 M/s. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Kothagudem, Khammam District, rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director. 2 The General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., RG-II Area, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more preferably in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents in not considering the representation dated 20.07.2008 preferred by him to the respondents, as wholly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to provide dependent employment to the petitioner as per clause 9.3.0. of Chapter IX of NATIONAL COAL WAGE AGREEMENT No.VII which is in force even as on today. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.GANTARAMAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents: MR.NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO The Court made the following ORDER: This case presents a pathetic situation. The father of the petitioner was employed as a Coal Cutter in Singareni Collieries Company Limited. He was found medically unﬁt and through orders, dated 16.03.1999, he was terminated on medical grounds. As a social security measure, the respondents did provide employment to the brother of the petitioner, by name Sri Vislavath Raju. Unfortunately, he is said to have died on 12.11.2003, even while undergoing training. The mother of the petitioner died on 03.05.2005. His another brother, by name Sri Vislavath Seetha, is said to have died in March, 2005. Faced with this bereavement, the petitioner virtually became destitute. It was only on 20.07.2008, he submitted an application to the respondents with a prayer to provide employment on compassionate grounds. His grievance is that no action has been taken thereon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The narration of the events undertaken above discloses the state of aﬀairs, in which, the petitioner ﬁnds himself. One after the other, the members of the family died and the only ray of hope for maintenance of the family in the form of appointment on compassionate grounds also disappeared with the death of the brother of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner may not ﬁt into the existing scheme in its letter, but, if anyone looks at the spirit underlying it, the petitioner deserves to be extended the same relief. More than strict little interpretation of the same, the respondents need to examine the matter from human angle. Further, the compassionate appointment already extended by the respondents can become meaningful, if only the intended purpose is ensured. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to examine the representation of the petitioner, dated 20.07.2008, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:28.08.2008. kdl