Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Puvvula Sirisha, vs The State Of A.P., on 16 August, 2022

             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,

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

2012 SCC Online AP 730: (2012) 4 ALD 366

2013 (4) ALT 501

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

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

(2020) 7 SCC 617

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

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

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."