1 RRN,J
WP No.38177 of 2018
*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
+W.P. No.38177 OF 2018
% 29-10-2022
#Mannem Venkat Ramana
....petitioner
Vs.
$ State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary, Tribal Welfare (BUD & EDN) Department,
Hyderabad and two others
.... Respondents
!Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Mannem Mallaiah Rao
Counsel for the Respondents : G.P for Social Welfare for respondents
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (2005) 6 SCC 705
2 RRN,J
WP No.38177 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
W.P. No.38177 OF 2018
Between:
Mannem Venkat Ramana
...Petitioner
And
State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary, Tribal Welfare (BUD & EDN) Department,
Hyderabad and two others
... Respondents
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 29.10.2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
__________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
3 RRN,J
WP No.38177 of 2018
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.38177 of 2018
ORDER:
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo No.1629/TW.Edn.A1/2017-6, dt.27.08.2018 issued by the first respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner for providing compassionate appointment to him on the ground of technicalities as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to provide him the compassionate appointment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.378, G.A.(Ser.A) Department, dt.24.08.1999.
3. It has been contended by the petitioner that his mother Smt. Mannem Manikyamma, aged 47 years was working as Kamati in Government S.T. Boys' Hostel, Palakeedu, and his father expired long back. On 02.03.2007, his mother left from his house as usual and went somewhere. Since then, her whereabouts are not known 4 RRN,J WP No.38177 of 2018 and the family of the petitioner has searched for her in all places and waited for sufficient time but she did not return home and went missing.
3.1 It is further contended by the petitioner that he was aged 20 years at the time of his mother went missing. The petitioner and his sister with the help of their relatives searched for their mother, but in vain. Hence, they lodged a police complaint with Nidamanuru Police Station, Nalgonda District, and basing on their complaint, the police registered a case vide Cr. No.214 of 2014 on 22.12.2014, under the head of woman missing. After causing enquiries and making all possible efforts to trace out their mother, the matter was referred to be unknown, undetectable in nature and submitted a final report to the concerned Magistrate. 3.2 It is further contended by the petitioner that the Government have issued the G.O.Ms.No.378,G.A.(Services-A) Department, dt.24.08.1999, guidelines for providing employment to the dependents of Government employees who have disappeared and whose whereabouts are not known for more than 7(seven) years. The operative portion of the said G.O.Ms No.378 reads as under:
5 RRN,J
WP No.38177 of 2018
"Government after careful examination of the matter, hereby directs that compassionate appointments be provided to the dependents of the Government employees, who have disappeared and whose whereabouts are not known for more than 7(seven) years in accordance with the existing instructions on the scheme of compassionate appointments to the dependents of deceased Government employees who die in harness, putting following conditions:
a) A request for grant of the benefit of compassionate appointments can be considered only after a lapse of 7 (seven) years from the date from which the Government Servant has been missing, provided that:
(i) An FIR (First Information Report) to this effect has been lodged with police.
(ii) The police report shall certify that the missing Government employee is not traceable; and
(iii) The competent authority feels that the case is genuine
b) This benefit shall not be applicable to the case of a Government servant:
(i) Who had less than 7 (seven) years to retire on the date from which the FIR is filed: and/or
(ii) Who is suspected to have committed fraud or suspected to have joined any terrorist/extremist organization or suspected to have gone abroad.
c) While considering the request for compassionate appointment the result of the police investigation shall also be taken into account
d) Applicants for compassionate appointment from the dependents of such missing Government employees shall be entertained within a period of one year from the date of completion of 7(seven) years from the date of filing FIR with police.
6 RRN,J
WP No.38177 of 2018
e) A decision on any such request for compassionate appointment shall be taken only at the level of the Secretary to Government of the respective administrative Department concerned and only after receipt of the approval from the concerned Secretary to Government, the respective appointing authorities shall issue necessary orders to appoint the eligible dependent of such missing Government employees as per the existing instructions on the scheme of compassionate appointments to the dependents of deceased Government employees in addition to the above conditions, if there is a vacancy readily available in the department. In case when there are no vacancies available in the department to appoint such eligible dependent of the missing Government employee, such cases have to be referred to Nodal Authorities for allotting such dependents to any other department in the District as ordered in G.O.Ms.No.427, Genl.Admn.(Ser.A) Department, dt.01.07.1991 read with G.O.Ms.No.533, Genl.Admn.(Ser.A) Department dt. 05.09.1991 and G.O.Ms.No.215, Genl.Admn. (Ser.A) Department dt. 08.04.1993.
f) A bond shall be obtained from the dependent of such missing Government employee, whose whereabouts are not known for more than 7(seven) years that in the event of appearance of such missing Government employee at a later date or proved that such missing Government employee is alive anywhere, the services of the person so appointed are liable for termination.
7 RRN,J
WP No.38177 of 2018
As such, the petitioner submitted an application to the 3rd respondent on 12.01.2015 requesting him to provide employment under compassionate grounds in terms of the said G.O. 3.3 After receipt of application of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent by sending proposals for obtaining prior approval from the Government. In the said proposals, under the caption of conditions and observations at Point No.(a) (iii), it is observed as follows:
"I have gone through the case and feel that the case is genuine as the missing Government employee Mannyam Manikyamma has went somewhere due to her mental illness and found missing beyond 7(seven) years and in this case no foul play is noticed as per final report of the Nidamanuru P.S. Besides, this son of Venkata Ramana is physically low growth by birth of his age and he is a disabled candidate with 48% as per the certificate for person with disability issued Medical Board at District headquarters Hospital Nalgonda on 12-07-2010. Hence, It is justified to provide a compassionate appointment to the dependent Venkat Ramana in place of his missing mother Mannyam Manikyamma on humanitarian grounds to meet the ends of natural justice."
The 2nd respondent sought clarification with regard to the delay in filing police complaint. The delay was properly explained by the petitioner. It is further contended by the 8 RRN,J WP No.38177 of 2018 petitioner that his explanation was not considered and the impugned rejection order had been passed by the respondent authorities and while rejecting the application, the Authorities observed as under:
"After careful examination of the matter in detail, as per G.O.Ms.No.378,G.A(Ser.A) department dated 24.08.1999, it is construed that an FIR should be filed immediately after noticing that the Government employee was missing and after completion of seven (7) years from the date of filing of FIR, if police reports that the missing employee is not detected then only the case has to be considered for compassionate appointment. Where as in the instance case FIR was filed after completion of seven (7) years from the date of missing of the Government employee and the police have given report only after 6 months from the filing of FIR. The proposal is against the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.378,G.A.(Ser.A) Department,dt.24-08-1999. While the petitioner has not submitted any medical reports pertaining to Smt. Manikyamma. As such, the request of Sri M. Venkataratnam S/o Smt. Manikyamma is not in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.378, dt.24.08.1999 and it is not feasible for consideration. Hence, the request for compassionate appointment is rejected.
Impugned by above rejection order, the present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner.
4. Respondents filed counter reiterating the contents of G.O.M.sNo.378 and further contended that in the instant case, FIR was filed after inordinate delay of 7 years from the date of missing 9 RRN,J WP No.38177 of 2018 of the petitioner's mother and the police had given report only after 6 months from the date of FIR. The petitioner has not submitted any medical papers pertaining to Smt. Manikyamma. Hence, the petitioner's request for compassionate appointment is rejected.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that though the delay in lodging the FIR was properly explained by the petitioner, the respondents have not considered the same, and rejected the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Rani Kusum Vs. Smt. Kanchan Devi1 wherein it was observed as follows:
"All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of procedural law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the Statute, the provisions of the CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice.
1
(2005) 6 SCC 705
10 RRN,J
WP No.38177 of 2018
The mortality of justice at the hands of law troubles a Judge's conscience and points an angry interrogation at the law reformer.
The procedural law so dominates in certain systems as to overpower substantive rights and substantial justice. The humanist rule that procedure should be the handmaid, not the mistress, of legal justice compels consideration of vesting a residuary power in judges to act ex debito justiciae where the tragic sequel otherwise would be wholly inequitable. - Justice is the goal of jurisprudence - procedural, as much as substantive.
A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory, the procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid to justice. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be followed. Procedural law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice.
Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.
6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that the authorities have already rejected the application of the petitioner on 27.08.2018 basing on technicalities and he has no right to ask any Compassionate Appointment against the 11 RRN,J WP No.38177 of 2018 GO.Ms.No.378 GA (Services-A) Department, dated 24-08-1999. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
7. Having considered the rival contentions of both parties, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rani Kusum (supra) and taking into consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that delay might have been occurred on account of mental agony undergone by the petitioner having put in relentless efforts to know whereabouts of his mother, apart from his physically handicapped. So, in such circumstances, the only delay aspect cannot curtail his right to livelihood. In view of the above, a direction to the respondents to reconsider the request of the petitioner would meet the ends of justice.
8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh for compassionate appointment in accordance with law and pass appropriate Orders within a period of (8) eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
12 RRN,J
WP No.38177 of 2018
As a sequent of which, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 29th October, 2022 BDR NOTE: LR TO BE MARKED