HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.8099 of 2022
ORDER :
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-
"...to issue the writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Wirt or Order or Orders by declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing Memo No.1307/B/2021, dated 23.11.2021 through which the application of the petitioner for appointing in any suitable post or compassionate ground in view of death of her mother as Office Sub-Ordinate has been rejected and thereby non considering the case of the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative and violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to appoint in any suitable post on compassionate grounds in view of death of her mother by setting aside the Memo No 1307/B/2021 dated 23.11.2021 issued by the 3rd Respondent and pass such other order or orders......."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's mother while working as Office Subordinate at Veterinary Dispensary, Jami, Vizianagarm District, expired on 24.05.2021. After death of her mother, the petitioner became penniless, due to financial crunch, the petitioner along with her family struggling for bread and butter, she made a representation to the respondent authorities seeking compassionate appointment and the same was rejected by the respondent authorities vide Memo No.1307/B/2021, dated 23.11.2021 on the ground that she is married.
It is further stated that in fact the petitioner and her husband are not having source of income except private daily works and to that effect on 19.07.2021 the Tahsildar, 2 Vizianagaram, has given no earning member certificate. In fact it is not in dispute that the petitioner is only the legal heir of her deceased mother and to that effect also the Tahsildar, Vizianagaram has given certificate on 19.06.2021. The petitioner has completed B.Sc degree. The respondents are relying on the Memo issued vide Govt. Memo No.80863/Service.G/A1/2005-1, G.A.D (Service.G), dated 06.08.2005 to reject her request for appointment on compassionate grounds. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. No counter affidavit is filed by the respondents till today and adjourning the matter for filing counter affidavit, again learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents sought time for filing counter affidavit. It appears that the respondents did not choose to file counter affidavit and failed to comply with the Rule 12(1) of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977. Following the decision of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in "J. Ramachandraiah Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others"1 this Court finds that the respondents violated the Rule 12 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977. Therefore, this Court without expecting counter affidavit by the respondents, decided to dispose of the matter.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents.
5. Learned counsel placed a decision of a Division Bench in Commissioner of Police and Others v. K.Padmaja2 and 1 2012 SCC Online AP 730: (2012) 4 ALD 366 2 2013 (4) ALT 501 3 also a recent judgment of a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.28931 of 2021 dated 20.01.2022 and urges that the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed, in the light of the above referred judgments.
6. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the case of the petitioner is not considered by the authorities as the petitioner is a married daughter, who is not dependent on her deceased mother and as such the proceedings impugned in the Writ Petition cannot be found fault with. He submits that the cause of death of the petitioner's mother is not mentioned in the Death Certificate produced by the petitioner and therefore she is not entitled for the benefit. The learned Assistant Government Pleader also places reliance on the Memo No.1307/B/2021, dated 23.11.2021 issued by the Government of A.P. Department of Agriculture Joint Directors (PA Department), Vizianagaram and contends that after examining the proposals sent for compassionate appointment orders, the Government issued their Government Memo No.80863/ Service.G/A1/2005-1, G.A.D (Service.G), dated 06.08.2005, that a compassionate appointment will be made to the married daughter to look after the spouse of the deceased government employee. But, when the spouse of a Government employee is not alive, the intention to employ a married daughter does not work. The learned Assistant Government Pleader also places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.9280-9281 of 2014 in N.C.Santosh v. State of 4 Karnataka and Others3. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
7. Considered arguments of both the learned counsel and perused the material on record. The only point that falls for consideration is, as to whether the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment and if so, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside?
8. There is no dispute that the petitioner is the daughter of the deceased Government Employee. The family member Certificate dated 19.06.2021 and No-earning Member Certificate dated 19.07.2021 issued by the concerned Tahsildar, Vizianagaram, reveals the status of the petitioner as legal heir of the deceased and that the petitioner has no income from any source as her husband is an un-employee and she has depended upon her mother for her livelihood till her demise and that the petitioner is non-earning member.
9. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.612, General Administration (SER-A) Department dated 30.10.1991 provided that where the deceased employee does not have any male child but leaves behind him/her, a married daughter and unmarried minor daughter, the choice of selecting one of them for appointment under the Social Security scheme shall be left to the spouse of the deceased. Thereafter, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.350 dated 30.07.1999, clarified that when there is only a married daughter to the deceased Government employee 3 (2020) 7 SCC 617 5 without older or younger brothers or sisters and the spouse of the deceased Government employee is not willing to avail the compassionate appointment, such married daughter may be considered compassionate appointment, provided she is dependent on the deceased Government employee and subject to satisfying the conditions and instructions issued on the scheme from time to time.
10. The above said Government Order dated 30.07.1999 were considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench in K.Padmaja's case referred to supra. The Hon'ble Division Bench while dealing with the Writ Petition filed by the Department against the orders passed by the erstwhile A.P.A.T., in O.A.No.6938 of 2012, considered similar contentions advanced and dismissed the Writ Petition confirming the orders in favour of the applicant for compassionate appointment. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Division Bench, inter alia, opined that even if the applicant is residing in a separate house, that by itself is not ground to reject the claim of the appointment. The Hon'ble Division Bench also held that merely because family pension is paid to the wife of the deceased, the same is not a ground to deprive the benefit of compassionate appointment under the scheme notified by the Government for the children of the deceased, who dies in harness.
11. In view of the above legal position, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be upheld and 6 the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader are liable to be rejected.
12. In Ch.Damayanthi's v. APSRTC's case vide W.P.No.10340 of 2014, a learned Single Judge of this Court had extensively dealt with the matters pertaining to compassionate appointments visa-a-vis the claims of the married daughters and allowed the Writ Petition, inter alia, holding as follows:
"41. In the present case the deceased employee left behind his wife and the petitioner only. There are no brothers or sisters to the petitioner only. There are no brothers or sisters to the petitioner. The claim of the mother of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected. Now after demise of her father, it is the responsibility cast upon the petitioner to take care of her old aged and widow mother, as she is the only daughter to her parents and there is nobody to take care of her mother for her remaining life. Due to this reason also, the case of the petitioner has to be considered, besides, the petitioner and her husband not having any permanent source of income for their survival.
42. If the petitioner, who has to take care of her widowed mother, is not given compassionate appointment, the whole family will be pushed to indigenous condition and to penury and the core aim and object of the compassionate appointment scheme will be defeated. petitioner As such, this Court hold that the is entitled for compassionate appointment under the "Bread Winner Scheme". Above referred judgments, in the considered opinion of this Court, applies to the facts of the present case.
13. Insofar as the judgment relied on by the learned Assistant Government Pleader in N.C.Santosh case referred to supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with compassionate appointments as provided in Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1996. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment inter alia, opined that the norms prevailing on the 7 date of consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. The said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case.
14. It may not be out of place here to refer to a judgment in Bhuvaneswari V.Puranik4. The learned Judge while dealing with the object of compassionate appointments succinctly dealt with the legal position and allowed a Writ Petition, wherein a challenge was laid to Rule 2(1) (a) (i), Rule 2(1) (b) and Rule 3(2)
(i) (c) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, holding inter alia as follows:
"If the marital status of a son does not make any difference in Law to his entitlement for seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, the marital status of a daughter should make no difference, as the married daughter does not seize to be a part of the family and Law cannot make an assumption that married sons alone continue to be the part of the family."
15. In the aforementioned view of the matter, the impugned proceedings vide Memo dated 23.11.2021 in the Writ Petition is liable to be set aside.
16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings vide Memo No.1307/B/2021, dated 23.11.2021 of the 3rd respondent is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment, in any suitable post, within a 4 2020 SCC Online Kar 3397 8 period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 16-08-2022 Gvl 9 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.8099 OF 2022 Date : 16.08.2022 Gvl