1
JS,J
wp_35944_2021
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION No.35944 of 2021
ORDER:
The petitioner filed this Writ Petition seeking to declare the action of respondents in not providing compassionate appointment to him and not paying the terminal benefits and family pension consequent on the death of his father on 30.05.2008 while in service on deployment in connection with the Bye-Elections to the Karimnagar Parliament Constituency, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard Sri D.Linga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services -II appearing for respondents.
3. The case of the petitioner is that his father was working as Village Revenue Assistant. He was posted on Election duty on 30.05.2008 in connection with Bye-Elections to the Karimnagar Parliament Constituency. While on duty, when he along with other Election Officers were returning after deploying the "polling boxes" at Karminagar, their vehicle met with an accident near Gangadhara village and the petitioner's father died on the spot. 2
JS,J wp_35944_2021 The case of the petitioner is that he was the only legal heir of his deceased father, as his mother pre-deceased his father. The petitioner was aged about 9 years as on the date of death of his father i.e.,30.05.2008. On attaining majority, he made a representation dated 02.08.2021, requesting the respondents to appoint him on compassionate grounds as his father died while on duty. The respondents have not taken any steps for appointing him on compassionate grounds on the ground that the petitioner has made such claim belatedly. The petitioner's case is that due to the death of his father, he became an orphan as his mother pre-deceased his father and he has been taken care of by his grand parents. Therefore, he approached the respondents with a little bit delay after attaining majority. Therefore, he seeks directions for his compassionate appointment, as the cases of many such persons were considered though there is some delay. In this connection, a reference was made to the order dated 12.02.2021 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.22290 of 2012, which was also confirmed by the Division Bench of said Court by order dated 25.08.2021 in Writ Appeal No.518 of 2021.
3
JS,J wp_35944_2021
4. Respondent No.5 has filed counter affidavit admitting about the death of petitioner's father on 30.05.2008 while on duty. The cause stated in the counter affidavit for not considering the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment is that the petitioner case does not come under Rule-8(3) of TS Village Servant Service Rules, 2005. It is further stated in the counter that one Mr.Kukkunuri Ganga Narsaiah S/o. Deva Rajam, who is the son of paternal uncle of petitioner's father was appointed as Village Servant in place of the petitioner's father as the said person came forward for taking care of petitioner and his old aged grand parents. It is also stated that the said Ganga Narsaiah became blind, was unable to discharge official duties and also absconded from duty, therefore, a show cause notice was issued to him and thereafter he was removed from Service the appeal preferred by him was also dismissed. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the representation made by the petitioner through Mr.T.Jeevan Reddy, MLC was forwarded to respondent No.3 by respondent No.4, but the same was not considered as the application for compassionate appointment was not made by the petitioner within a period of one year from the date of death of his father. The respondents, in support of their case, relied on the 4 JS,J wp_35944_2021 judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhaneswar Medhi Vs. Union of India 1.
5. The admitted case of the parties is that the petitioner's father, while working as Village Revenue Assistant, was deputed on Election duty and during the course of such duty, the vehicle in which he was travelling along with other staff, met with an accident causing his instantaneous death on 30.05.2008. The case of the petitioner is that as on the date of death of his father, he was aged 9 years and that his mother pre-deceased his father and thus, he became an orphan. Therefore, he could not approach the respondents for compassionate appointment immediately after his father's death. The only ground taken by the respondents for not considering the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment is that he has not made the application within one year from the date of death of his father as prescribed under the rules for compassionate appointment. In the Judgment in Dhaneshwar Medhi's case (3 supra) relied on by the respondents, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not grant the relief of compassionate appointment to the petitioner therein in view of delay in making application for such appointment. 1 2021 SCC online Megh 15 5 JS,J wp_35944_2021 Though there is no dispute with regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the said judgment cannot be applied to the case on hand. In the present case, the petitioner is the only surviving member of the family being looked after by his grand parents. Further, he was aged only 9 years at the time of his father's death. Therefore, he waited for attaining majority and could approach the respondents only thereafter. Though there is some delay on the part of the petitioner in making his claim, as he attained majority in the year 2017 as even according to him, he was aged 9 years in 2008, such delay cannot become a hurdle in his claim for compassionate appointment. In W.P.No.22290 of 2012, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, while considering the similar issue, has observed that the dependants of the deceased employee may not be aware about the compassionate appointment scheme and other conditions like time stipulated for making such application etc. Since the family members of the bereaved family will be in grief, it will take some time for them to lay their claim for compassionate appointment. It is also observed that the 6 JS,J wp_35944_2021 authorities have to consider the situation of such family in a sympathetic way and with human touch instead of following the technicalities. In the said judgment, a reference was also made to the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balbir Kaur vs. Steel Authority of India Limited 2, wherein, it is held that while considering the case for compassionate appointment, the authorities are supposed to adopt a humane outlook. With such observations, the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition directing the respondents therein to consider the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment. The said order of the single Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench vide orders dated 25.08.2021 in W.A.No.518 of 2021.
6. The aforesaid judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is squarely applicable to the case on hand, as in the present case also, the petitioner's family condition is very pathetic as both the parents were expired and he is being looked after by his old-aged grand parents. Though the respondents have stated that one Kukkunuri Ganga Narsaiah i.e, the son of the paternal uncle of petitioner's father was given compassionate appointment, such appointment was made without any basis and 2 (2000) 6 SSC 493 7 JS,J wp_35944_2021 further, the said person was later removed from service. Hence, basing on the same, the respondents cannot deny Compassionate appointment to the petitioner. In the factual background of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner can be considered for compassionate appointment without reference to the objection taken by the respondents that there is some delay on the part of the petitioner in making the claim for compassionate appointment.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in any suitable post within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents are further directed to pay the terminal benefits including family pension payable to the petitioner as per rules consequent upon the death of his father late Kukkunuri Shankaraiah within the aforesaid time frame. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Dated: 20.09.2023 dgr