Hyderabad: Dismissing Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board (HMWS&SB) contention that a job on compassionate grounds cannot be given to a deceased employee’s married daughter, Telangana high court has directed the board to reconsider a woman’s plea for a compassionate appointment in its true spirit within four weeks.Justice Surepalli Nanda ruled that the water board mechanically rejected the request of the petitioner, P Kavita, on the same grounds that the court already set aside in an earlier order.Along with the review petition, the court also disposed of a contempt case filed by Kavita against the board for wilfully disobeying the court’s prior directives.The dispute began after the water board rejected Kavita’s application for a compassionate job following the death of her mother, who was working for the board.The board argued that as a married daughter, she was ineligible. Kavita challenged this, and high court ruled in her favour in April 2025.However, instead of appointing her, the board called her for a personal hearing and issued a second rejection order in Sept 2025, repeating the same logic.The board then filed a review petition before the high court seeking to overturn the court’s initial decision, while Kavita filed a contempt petition to punish the board for its non-compliance.In its arguments before the court, the water board contended that Kavita delayed challenging the original 2018 rejection and argued the case should have been dismissed earlier.The board further argued that Kavita suppressed the fact that her brother was a police constable living in the same house, meaning she was not entirely dependent on the deceased employee.They also claimed she was living with her husband and had failed to provide evidence of being deserted or abandoned.Countering these arguments, Kavita’s counsel pointed out that the board’s review petition was filed well past the standard 30-day deadline. The counsel further argued that the board was trying to introduce entirely new arguments — such as the brother’s employment and the timeline delay — which were never mentioned in its original rejection orders or prior counter-affidavits.The petitioner stated that the board could not simply invent new justifications after its initial reasoning was struck down.The court criticised the board’s approach, noting that a review petition cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise or a chance to reargue a case on its merits.The court observed that a review was permitted only if there was an obvious, self-evident mistake on the face of the record or if critical new evidence was discovered that could not be found earlier despite due diligence, noting that no such errors or new facts were found in the present case.Justice Nanda observed that the board failed to understand the true spirit of the court’s justice-driven directives and acted mechanically, while emphasising that when an authority acts in defiance of court orders, the judiciary has a duty to issue rectifying directions so that no unfair advantage was gained through disobedience.Accordingly, the judge ordered the water board to look at the matter entirely afresh, verify Kavita’s documents, provide her with a personal hearing, and communicate a final decision within four weeks, completely disregarding its second rejection order, and disposed of the board’s review petition.
