Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Apgenco, vs U A P Sarma on 15 March, 2021
Bench: Arup Kumar Goswami, C.Praveen Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.136 of 2021
(Taken up through video conferencing)
APGENCO, Vidyuth Soudha,
Gunadala, Vijayawada,
Rep.by its Managing Director
and two others. .. Appellants
Versus
U.A.P.Sarma S/o. late U.V.Ramana,
Aged about 37 years,
r/o. D.No.4096-10/4,
Gopalakrishna Nagar, Sujatha Nagar,
Visakhapatnam. ..Respondent
Counsel for the Appellants : Mr.M.Vidyasagar
Counsel for Respondent : Mr.V.S.K.Rama Rao
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 15.03.2021
(Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)
Heard Mr.M.Vidyasagar, learned standing counsel for the appellants.
2. Also heard Mr.V.S.K.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the
respondent/writ petitioner.
3. This Writ Appeal was presented against the order dated 19.01.2021
passed in W.P.No.22949 of 2012, whereby the learned single Judge set
aside the letters dated 04.06.2008 and 15.07.2008, by which the
application of the writ petitioner for consideration of his case for
compassionate appointment was rejected, and a further direction was
issued to the respondents (appellants herein) to issue compassionate
appointment to the writ petitioner as per his qualifications in any suitable
post, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of
the order.
4. Prior to the institution of W.P.No.22949 of 2012, the writ petitioner
had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.15047 of 2005, assailing the
rejection of his case for compassionate appointment vide order dated
07.11.2003, with a further prayer to direct the respondents therein to
appoint him on compassionate ground. The said writ petition was allowed
by an order dated 31.03.2008.
5. The sole ground advanced in support of the appeal is that father of
the writ petitioner did not have five years service left from the date he was
relieved on medical invalidation and, therefore, the writ petitioner was not
entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment.
6. In the context of the above argument, it would be necessary to
extract the order dated 31.03.2008, passed in W.P.No.15047 of 2005, in its
entirety:
"It appears, petitioner's father while working in the
Respondent Organisation was made to retire on 6.4.2001 on
medical grounds with a promise that his son will be provided with
employment since there was a scheme available during the year
2001. However, when the petitioner made representation to the
respondents for providing employment on compassionate grounds,
his case was rejected on the ground that his father was having only
4 years, 10 months balance service left over as on the date of his
retirement on medical invalidation. According to the respondents,
unless one has a left over service of five years or more, his children
are not entitled for claiming compassionate appointment. This
appears to be not correct in the light of the counter filed by the
respondents. At paragraph 4 of the counter filed on behalf of
respondents, it is stated that petitioner's father was relieved of his
duties with effect from 31.8.2001 A.N. at the first instance. Later,
revised relief orders were issued duly allowing him to retire with
effect from 6.4.2001 F.N. and he has not joined duty earlier to his
medical examination and report vide Memo dated 10.4.2002.
Further, before submitting pension papers, petitioner's father
expired on 26.10.2001. The pension was sanctioned with effect
from 6.4.2001 and the benefits were passed on to his wife.
These admitted averments would indicate that the father
of the petitioner was made to retire on medical grounds with effect
from 6.4.2001 and not on 31.8.2001 and if 6.4.2001 is taken into
consideration, petitioner's father had more than five years left over
service after retirement on medical grounds. Under those
circumstances, I am of the opinion that the rejection of case of the
petitioner on the ground that his father had left over service of less
than five years is not correct, therefore, rejection of petitioner's
claim on that ground is not tenable and the impugned order is
liable to be set aside. (emphasis supplied by us)
In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the
impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to
consider the case of the petitioner for providing employment in
any suitable post in the Respondent Organisation on
compassionate grounds and pass appropriate orders, as per
law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner.
No order as to costs."
7. A perusal of the above order would go to show that this Court had
recorded the finding that the rejection of the case of the writ petitioner on
the ground that his father had left over service of less than five years, is
not correct and, therefore, rejection of petitioner's claim on that ground is
not tenable. The said order was not carried in appeal and the order has
attained finality.
8. In the letter dated 04.06.2008, which gave rise to filing of the writ
petition, out of which this present appeal arises, the Joint Secretary (Per),
while rejecting the case of the petitioner stated as follows:
"xxxxxx
xxxxxx
3) Whereas; the orders issued by the
SE/O&M/Mothugudem permitting Sri U.V.Ramana to get
relieved off his duties from service with effect from
31.08.2001 on medical invalidation is in accordance with
the Sub-Regulation - 15(b) of Regulation 35 of APSEB
Leave Regulations as adopted by APGENCO and as further
clarified in the orders issued in the memo dt:24.05.1999.
As per the said clarificatory order, Sri U.V.Ramana, Ex-
HS.Gr.II has been found not having 5 years left over
service from the date of his relief on medical invalidation."
(emphasis supplied by us)
9. A perusal of the above order would go to show that the Joint
Secretary (Per) had over-reached the orders of this Court and had recorded
a finding that the father of the writ petitioner was found to be not having
five years left over service from the date of his relieve on medical
invalidation, contrary to what has been recorded by this Court. The order
of the Joint Secretary (Per) is sub-versive and antagonistic to rule of law
and cannot receive judicial imprimatur.
10. The learned single Judge also took note of the aforesaid judgment
rendered in W.P.No.15047 of 2005 and in paras 12 and 13 held as follows:
"12) The petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate
ground was rejected vide letter, dated 07.11.2003 on the ground
that the father of the petitioner had left over service of less than
five years. The petitioner filed W.P.No.15047 of 2005 and the
same was allowed by order, dated 31.03.2008 by this Court.
While allowing the said writ petition, this Court had taken into
consideration the averments of the counter affidavit filed by the
respondents in which it was stated that though the petitioner's
father was relieving of his duties with effect from 31.08.2001 A.N.
at first instance, later, revised relieved order was issued duly
allowing him to retire with effect from 06.04.2001. This Court also
noted that before submitting pension papers, petitioner's father
expired on 26.10.2001 and the pension was sanctioned with
effect from 06.04.2001 and the benefits were passed on to his
wife. Considering all these aspects, this Court while allowing the
writ petition held that the rejection of case of the petitioner on
the ground that his father had left over service of less than five
years is not correct, therefore, rejection of petitioner's claim on
that ground is not tenable and the impugned order is liable to be
set aside and accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
the respondents are directed to consider the case of the
petitioner for providing employment in any suitable post in the
respondents organization on compassionate grounds. The orders
of this Court and its findings have become final, as no appeal is
filed against this order by the respondents.
13) In view of the fact that in the order, dated 31.03.2008 in
W.P.No.15047 of 2005, this Court held that the stand of the
respondents that the father of the petitioner had left over service
of less than five years is not correct and not tenable and the
impugned order in which the grounds are raised by the
respondents is set aside, the action of the respondents in raising
the same grounds to reject the claim of the petitioner in the
impugned proceedings is illegal and contrary to the orders passed
by this Court in W.P.No.15047 of 2005. As and when the
respondents issued Memo No.DE/SLR/C1/448, dated 10.04.2002
and sanctioned the pension basing on the said memo, taking
contrary stand to their earlier actions/decisions is not permissible
under law."
11. We are of the considered opinion that the appellants have filed this
appeal on no good ground. At the time of argument also, the learned
standing counsel for the appellants kept on reiterating that according to the
understanding of the appellants, the father of the writ petitioner did not
have left over service of five years, completely overlooking the fact that a
finding to the contrary had been recorded by this Court in the earlier round
of litigation.
12. In view of the above, finding no merits, we dismiss this appeal with
costs of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to be paid to the writ
petitioner.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
GM
