Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Secretary, vs Karavanjilalithakumari, on 4 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT APPEAL No. 294 of 2021
(Taken up through video conferencing)
The Secretary, the Andhra Pradesh Residential
Educational Institutional Society, Pamulapati
Sivaiah Complex, Koritapadu, Guntur,
Guntur District. .... Appellant
Versus
Karavanji Lalithakumari, W/o Satyarao,
H.No.9-14-73, Dammala Street,
Srikakulam, Srikakulam District,
Andhra Pradesh and others .... Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. L.V.S. Nagaraju
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. G.U.R.C. Prasad
Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 : None appeared
Date of hearing : 02.09.2021
Date of Pronouncement : 04.10.2021
JUDGMENT
(Per Ninala Jayasurya, J)
The present writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 23.02.2021 passed by
the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4401 of 2016, wherein and whereby the proceedings
of the 2nd respondent/appellant dated 07.10.2014 rejecting the request of the writ
petitioner/1st respondent for compassionate appointment was set aside and a direction was
issued to consider the case of the writ petitioner for appointment in any suitable post
subject to her eligibility, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
the order.
HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.No.294 of 2021
2. The case of the writ petitioner as per the averments made in the writ petition is that
one Smt. P. Umamaheswari is mother of the petitioner, who worked as a Multi-Purpose
Worker in A. P. Residential School, S.M. Puram, Srikakulam District, and that she died in
harness on 01.02.2014 leaving the petitioner in penury without any means of livelihood.
The petitioner's father died, prior to the death of her mother, and the petitioner is having
one brother who got married during the lifetime of their mother against her wishes and
living separately. The petitioner was married to one Mr. Satyarao in the year 2005 during
the lifetime of her mother, and due to family disputes, he deserted the petitioner in the
house of her mother in the year 2010 and since then, they are residing separately. The
petitioner is solely dependent on her mother and not having any means of livelihood.
i) Against the above background position, the petitioner made an application to the
2nd respondent seeking compassionate appointment enclosing the death certificate of her
mother and also no objection certificate given by her brother. But, said application was
rejected by the 2nd respondent by proceedings dated 07.10.2014 on the ground that she did
not produce the death certificate of her mother and also no objection certificate from other
family members. The said proceedings of the 2nd respondent impugned in the writ
petition are as follows:
"PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECRETARY :: A.P.R.E.I. SOCIETY (R) ::
HYDERABAD
Present:- Smt. B. Seshukumari, M.Sc., M.Ed.,
Rc.No.4443/A3-2/14 Dt.07-10-2014
Sub:- Estt., APREI Society (Regd.), Hyderabad - Representation of
Smt. K. Lalithakumari, D/o late Smt. P.Umamaheswari, MPW,
APRS, S.M. Puram, Srikakulam District for the appointment
on compassionate grounds - Rejection of proposal - Reg.
Ref:- Representation of the individual through the Principal, APRS,
S.M. Puram, Srikakulam District.
HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.No.294 of 2021
****
In the reference cited, the Principal, APR School, S.M. Puram,
Srikakulam District has submitted proposals for the appointment on
compassionate grounds to Smt. K. Lalithakumari, D/o late Smt. P.
Umamaheswari, MPW, APRS, S.M. Puram, Srikakulam District, whose
mother was expired on 01.02.2014.
After verification of certificates of the incumbent, it was observed that
the incumbent has not enclosed the following certificates:
1) Death certificate of the deceased person
2) No objection certificate from other family members
However, as per G.O.Ms.No.350, General Administration (Ser-A)
Department, dated 30.07.1999, Smt. K. Lalithakumari, D/o late Smt. P.
Umamaheswari, MPW is not eligible for the appointment on compassionate
grounds since she is not the only daughter and is having one younger brother,
who is a Govt. employee.
Therefore, Smt. K. Lalithakumari, D/o late Smt. P.Umamaheswari,
MPW is hereby informed that her representation for providing appointment on
compassionate grounds is not feasible for consideration under the above
reason.
Receipt of the proceedings should be acknowledged.
Sd/- B.Seshukumari
SECRETARY."
ii) It may be noted that along with the writ petition, Family Member Certificate dated
05.03.2014 and No-Earning Member Certificate dated 03.07.2014 issued by the
Tahsildar, Srikakulam, along with the Death Certificate of the mother of the petitioner
dated 24.03.2014 were filed.
HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.No.294 of 2021
3. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit. It was stated that as per the Family
Member Certificate dated 05.03.2014, the petitioner's brother was shown as unmarried
and in the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity proposals submitted by the petitioner's brother
for grant of gratuity of their mother Smt. P. Umamaheswari, in the relevant columns of
the application dated 16.04.2014, the brother of the petitioner was shown as un-married
and employed as a Teacher and the petitioner was shown as married and unemployed. On
the basis of the same, it was pleaded that the petitioner's averment that her brother was
married is absolutely false and no authentic document was submitted by her along with
the application for compassionate appointment to justify that she is dependent on her
mother.
i) While referring to the Circular Memo No.60681/Ser.A/2003-1 dated 12.08.2003
issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration (SER-A)
Department, it was pleaded that the petitioner's representation was rejected on the reason
that she is not the only daughter of the deceased employee, but she is having one younger
brother, who is a Government employee. It was also stated that the petitioner's brother
joined as Physical Education Teacher on 19.10.2009 in Z.P. High School, Korni of Gara
Mandal, and later joined in the High School, Budumuru on 02.11.2019 as School
Assistant (Physical Education) on promotion, and that the said position clearly discloses
that the petitioner's brother is a Government employee i.e., an earning member since
19.10.2009 and the same confirms his status as Teacher as mentioned in the application
made with regard to the gratuity of the petitioner's mother. It was further stated that in
view of the Circular Memo referred to above, the case of the petitioner for providing
appointment on compassionate grounds is not feasible and therefore, there is no infirmity
in the order impugned in the writ petition.
HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.No.294 of 2021
ii) The relevant documents referred to in the counter-affidavit i.e., copy of the
application made by the petitioner's brother with reference to pensionary benefits of the
deceased employee dated 16.04.2014, copy of the Circular Memo issued by the
Government dated 12.08.2003, and copy of letter dated 30.12.2020 of the District
Educational Officer, Srikakulam, enclosing the details with regard to the employment of
the petitioner's brother furnished by the Head Master, Zilla Parishad High School,
Budumuru, Srikakulam District, were filed.
4. As seen from the record, no reply-affidavit denying the averments made in the
counter-affidavit of the 2nd respondent appears to have been filed.
5. The learned Single Judge, considering the submissions made by the respective
counsel and relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balbir Kaur Vs.
Steel Authority of India Limited, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 493, and a decision of a
Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the Superintending Engineer Vs. V. Jaya,
reported in (2007) 6 MLJ 1011, allowed the writ petition by an order dated 23.02.2021
inter alia holding as follows:
"16) Upon careful perusal of the comprehensive note on the scheme of
compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased Government
employees issued vide Circular Memo No.60681/Ser.A/2003-1, General
Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 12.08.2003, in which it is provided that
one of the dependent family members of the deceased Government employee, who
die in harness, there being no other earning member in the family are eligible for
appointment to a job in Government services. As per the said scheme, dependent
family member means a spouse, son/daughter of regular government employees.
As per the said scheme, it is provided that in the family of the deceased
government employee, if the son, who is employee, is separated from the family
and if the family is without an earning member, the spouse/son/daughter out of
the remaining family may be considered for compassionate appointment.
HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.No.294 of 2021
17) In the present case, the petitioner is claiming that her brother viz.,
Chandrasekhar separated from the family and living separately during the life
time of her mother. If the contention of the respondents is carefully scrutinized, it
appears from their contention that the brother of the petitioner was a government
employee, and as such, the petitioner is not entitled for consideration on
compassionate appointment. The respondents never contended that the
petitioner and her brother are living jointly and the contention of the petitioner
that her brother separated from their family is correct or not. Under these
circumstances, there is no option to this Court to believe the contention of the
petitioner that her brother separated from the family during the life time
of her mother and living separately. In view of that situation, it has to be
construed that the petitioner is the only person depending on her mother and she
lost her bread winner for untimely death of her mother.
18) In G.O.Ms.No.350, General Administration (Ser.A)
Department, dated 30.07.1999, it is clarified that when there is only a married
daughter to the deceased government employee 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 for compassionate appointment provided she is dependent on
the deceased government employee. As per this clarification also the case of the
petitioner can be considered though she is a married daughter of the deceased
government employee, even in the absence of any proof about her desertion with
her husband."
6. Aggrieved by the orders of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal has been
instituted on various grounds.
7. Heard Mr. L.V.S. Nagaraju, learned counsel for the appellant/2nd respondent, and
Mr. G.U.R.C. Prasad, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner.
8. Mr. L.V.S. Nagaraju submits that the order of the learned Single Judge is not
sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. He contends that as per the
relevant Government Orders and the Circular Memo dated 12.08.2003 providing for a
HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.No.294 of 2021
comprehensive note on the scheme of compassionate appointment provides for
appointment, the criteria, inter alia, to a job in Government service stipulates thus:
"(i) One of the dependent family members of the deceased Government
employee who die in harness, there being no other earning member in the
family."
He submits that in the present case, as is evident from the materials/documents filed along
with the counter-affidavit, the petitioner's brother is an earning member in the family,
who is a Government employee and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for
compassionate appointment. He further contends that it is the projected case of the
petitioner that her brother was married and started living separately, as his marriage was
against the wishes of their mother. He further contends that in the application submitted
by the petitioner's brother for the purpose of pensionary benefits of their deceased
mother, it is clearly stated that the brother of the petitioner was un-married and working
as a Teacher. Therefore, the whole case of the petitioner that her brother was married and
living separately and due to the death of their mother, on whom she is dependent, she lost
her livelihood, has no legs to stand.
i) He further submits that though it is claimed by the petitioner that she was deserted
by her husband, no material has been filed indicative of her submission that she is
dependent on her mother due to the said reason. He contends that the learned Single
Judge had not taken into account the documents, which support the case of the appellant,
and erred in recording conclusions without examining the effect of the same as also
without appreciating the averments in paras 5 and 6 of the counter-affidavit. The learned
counsel also submits that the interpretation of the learned Single Judge with regard to the
entitlement of married daughter to compassionate appointment on the basis of
G.O.Ms.No.350 dated 30.07.1999 is not correct, inasmuch as the situation contemplated
HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.No.294 of 2021
under the said G.O. is not attracted to the facts of the present case. Making the above
submissions, the learned counsel urges that the order under appeal is liable to be set aside.
9. Refuting the said contentions, Mr. G.U.R.C. Prasad, learned counsel for the 1st
respondent/writ petitioner, submits that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order
passed by the learned Single Judge and the same is well considered. He submits that the
learned Single Judge, on an overall appreciation of the facts of the case and taking into
account the undisputed fact that the petitioner's brother is living separately, recorded
categorical findings that the petitioner is solely dependent on her mother and keeping in
view the laudable object of the scheme of compassionate appointment, which is a social
security measure to help the families of the deceased Government employees, issued the
direction impugned in the writ petition, and the same cannot be found fault with, under
any stretch of imagination. The learned counsel submits that the Family Members
Certificate and No-Earning Member Certificate dated 05.03.2014 and 03.07.2014,
respectively, issued by the concerned Tahsildar are only for the limited purpose
mentioned therein and the same would not enure any benefit to the petitioner. The
learned counsel specifically points out that even as per the Circular Memo dated
12.08.2003, on which reliance is placed by the appellant/2nd respondent, the case of the
petitioner deserves consideration. The relevant portion in the said Circular Memo dated
12.08.2003 reads as follows:
(i) In the family of the deceased Government employee, if the son who is employed
is separated from the family and if the family is without an earning member, the
spouse/son/daughter out of the remaining family may be considered for
compassionate appointment."
i) Referring to the said clause, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that
even assuming that the petitioner's brother is an employee, as he separated from the
family, due to the death of the petitioner's mother, there is no earning member and being
HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.No.294 of 2021
the daughter out of the remaining family, the petitioner is entitled for compassionate
appointment. Submitting so, the learned counsel states that the contentions advanced by
the learned counsel for the appellant deserve to be rejected. He also submits that the
learned Single Judge had taken into account the effect of death of the bread-winner on the
remaining members of the family and to mitigate the financial hardship, felt it appropriate
to issue the direction which was well within his discretion and therefore, the same
warrants no interference by this Court. Accordingly, he submits that the appeal is liable
to be dismissed.
10. This Court has considered the submissions of both the learned counsel and perused
the materials available on record.
11. The petitioner laid her claim for compassionate appointment on the foundation that
the petitioner's brother got married during the lifetime of their mother against her wishes
and left the house, while she was alive and living separately since then, and further that
the petitioner was living with her mother, as her husband deserted her. Since her mother
died in harness and she is dependent on her mother, she was left destitute, without any
means of livelihood. Basing on G.O.Ms.No.350 dated 30.07.1999, on which reliance is
placed, the case of a married daughter can be considered in the circumstances enumerated
in the said G.O., the relevant portion of which, may be extracted for better appreciation as
under:
"3. Certain cases have been referred to the Government seeking
clarification for compassionate appointment of married daughter in cases
where the deceased Government employee is having only a married daughter
and spouse without any other children.
4. In such cases Government hereby clarify that where there is only a
married daughter to the deceased Government employee without older or
younger brothers or sisters and the spouse of the deceased Government
HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.No.294 of 2021
employee is not willing to avail the compassionate appointment, such married
daughter may be considered for compassionate appointment, provided she is
dependent on the deceased Government employee and subject to satisfying,
the other conditions and instructions issued on the scheme from time to time."
12. A reading of the above clarification goes to show that the married daughter is
entitled for consideration of her case for compassionate appointment, provided that she is
dependent on the deceased Government employee, and further that the married daughter
is without older or younger brothers or sisters and the spouse of the deceased Government
employee is not willing to avail the compassionate appointment. However, such a
situation is not present in the case on hand, since the petitioner is having an younger
brother. In view of the above position, the contention of the learned counsel for the 1st
respondent/writ petitioner that the petitioner's case falls within the parameters laid down
in G.O.Ms.No.350 dated 30.07.1999 deserves to be rejected. Application of the said
clarification to the facts of the present case, in the opinion of this Court, is not correct and
the findings recorded on the basis of the same are not sustainable.
13. Be that as it may. Circular Memo dated 12.08.2003, on which both the learned
counsel placed reliance, which provides for a comprehensive note on the scheme of
compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased Government employees, is
also required to be considered. As per the said Circular Memo, twin requirements are to
be satisfied for appointment to a job in Government service under the scheme of
compassionate appointment, which may be extracted for ready reference as under:
"I. The objective of the Compassionate Appointment Scheme:
(i) One of the dependent family members of the deceased Government
employee who die in harness, there being no other earning member in the
family."
HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.No.294 of 2021
II. Dependent family member means:-
(a) Spouse }
} of regular Govt. employees
(b) Son/Daughter }
(i) In the family of the deceased Government employee, if the son who is
employed is separated from the family and if the family is without an earning
member, the spouse/son/daughter out of the remaining family may be
considered for compassionate appointment."
14. It may also be relevant to note here that similar clarification as provided in para 4
of G.O.Ms.No.350 dated 30.07.1999 with regard to eligibility of a married daughter
without older or younger brothers or sisters and the spouse of the deceased Government
employee who is not willing to avail the compassionate appointment, is also incorporated
in the aforesaid Circular Memo.
15. Testing the case of the petitioner with reference to the above requirements, as seen
from the materials available on record i.e., Clause I (i) of the Memo dated 12.08.2003, the
case of the petitioner would not be attracted, since her younger brother is an earning
member in the family - a Government Teacher. However, the petitioner's case is
required to be examined, in the light of Clause II (i) of the Memo referred to above,
which provides for consideration of compassionate appointment to spouse/son/daughter
out of the remaining family where the son of a deceased Government employee is
employed and separated from the family and thereby the family is without an earning
member. To claim such a benefit, it is to be established that the employed son of the
deceased was separated from the family. It is the case of the petitioner that her brother
separated from the family after getting married against the wishes of her mother during
her lifetime and he is living separately since then. However, the documents on record
belie the case of the petitioner that her brother is married.
HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.No.294 of 2021
16. As seen from the Family Members Certificate dated 05.03.2014 issued by the
Tahsildar, Srikakulam, in the relevant column, the petitioner's brother was shown as un-
married. Even assuming, as contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, that
the said certificate is for a limited purpose as mentioned therein and would not enure any
benefit to the petitioner, the application submitted by the petitioner's brother with regard
to the pensionary benefits of their deceased mother, cannot be lost sight of. The
application form of the petitioner's brother dated 16.04.2014 exhibited along with the
counter-affidavit of the appellant/2nd respondent, which is after two months from the
death of their mother on 01.02.2014, contains the columns with regard to the marital
status and employment details etc., wherein it was stated as under:
"K. Chandra Sekhar - 31 years - Son - Unmarried - Teacher"
17. The applicant is no other than the brother of the petitioner who, according to the
petitioner, is stated to have married against the wishes of their mother and living
separately. However, the above referred document turns down the case of the petitioner
that her brother was married. Once the foundation goes, the whole edifice falls. In the
light of the above documentary evidence, the case of the petitioner that her brother was
married and living separately or separated from the family, which attracts the situation as
provided in the Circular Memo referred to above, cannot be accepted. Further, the
petitioner did not state anything in the affidavit about her brother's status regarding
employment and she has not filed any document, which lends support to her case that she
is dependent on her deceased mother.
18. It may also be relevant to note that the documents filed along with the counter-
affidavit are neither disputed nor any reply to the counter-affidavit is filed denying the
statements made therein. Further, the burden lies on the petitioner, who is seeking
compassionate appointment, to substantiate her case, as such an appointment is not an
HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.No.294 of 2021
alternative for regular employment. The case of the petitioner has to stand or fall on the
pleas advanced by her. Therefore, the observation of the learned Single Judge that the
appellant/2nd respondent never contended that the petitioner and her brother are living
jointly, would be of no consequence, in view of the specific assertions in the counter-
affidavit denying the case of the petitioner that her brother was married and the petitioner
is dependent on her mother. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition as laid
down and relied on by the learned Single Judge in Balbir Kaur's case referred to supra
that in considering the case for compassionate appointment, the authorities are supposed
to adopt a humane outlook. However, such an appointment shall satisfy the
prescriptions/norms as laid down in the schemes, else it would lead to ingenious claims.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent case in N.C. Santosh Vs. State of
Karnataka and others, reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617, inter alia opined that dependants of
the deceased employee are made eligible by virtue of the policy on compassionate
appointment and they must fulfill the norms laid down by the State's Policy. In the
present case, the documents on record ex facie disprove the claim set up by the petitioner
on the premise that her brother is married and living separately. She failed to satisfy the
twin requirements in terms of the Circular Memo dated 12.08.2003.
20. In this regard, it may be appropriate to refer to the expression of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India, reported in (2011) 4 SCC
209, which reads thus:
"15. Now, it is well settled that compassionate employment is given solely
on humanitarian grounds with the sole object to provide immediate relief to
the employee's family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and cannot be
claimed as a matter of right. Appointment based solely on descent is inimical
to our constitutional scheme, and ordinarily public employment must be
strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit,
HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.No.294 of 2021
in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No other
mode of appointment is permissible. Nevertheless, the concept of
compassionate appointment has been recognized as an exception to the
general rule, carved out in the interest of justice, in certain exigencies, by way
of a policy of an employer, which partakes the character of the service rules.
That being so, it needs little emphasis that the scheme or the policy, as the
case may be, is binding both on the employer and the employee. Being an
exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the
purpose it seeks to achieve."
In the light of the above factual and legal position of the case, this Court finds that the
proceedings dated 07.10.2014 impugned in the writ petition is sustainable in law.
21. Further, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant/2nd respondent, the
documents, which support the case of the appellant and which are fatal to the case set up
by the petitioner, were not taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge. Under
the said circumstances as also for the reasons/conclusions arrived at supra, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the order under appeal needs to be interfered with by this
Court, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction in terms of the provisions of the Letters
Patent.
22. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order dated 23.02.2021 passed by
the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4401 of 2016 is set aside. No order as to costs.
23. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand disposed of.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J
cbs
Note: L.R. copy be marked.
(b/o)
cbs
HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.No.294 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT APPEAL No.294 of 2021
4th October, 2021
cbs
HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.No.294 of 2021
*HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
*HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
+WRIT APPEAL No. 294 of 2021
(Taken up through video conferencing)
% 04-10-2021
# The Secretary, the Andhra Pradesh Residential
Educational Institutional Society, Pamulapati
Sivaiah Complex, Koritapadu, Guntur,
Guntur District. ..... Appellant
Versus
$ Karavanji Lalithakumari, W/o Satyarao,
H.No.9-14-73, Dammala Street,
Srikakulam, Srikakulam District,
Andhra Pradesh and others ....Respondents
< GIST :
>HEAD NOTE :
! Counsel for the appellant : Mr. L.V.S. Raju
^ Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. G.U.R.C. Prasad
^ Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 : None appeared
? CASES REFERRED :
1) (2000) 6 SCC 493
2) (2007) 6 MLJ 1011
3) (2020) 7 SCC 617
4) (2011) 4 SCC 209
