HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.11684 of 2012
ORDER :
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India for the following relief:-
"to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for Compassionate Appointment inspite of the orders passed by this Honble High Court in W.P.No.17246 of 2008, dt 08.08.2008 which is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner by setting aside the impugned Proceedings issued vide F.28/36, dated 06.11.2008 passed by the 3rd respondents and pass such other order or orders......."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's
father died on 15.1.2003 while he was in service, leaving
behind the petitioner and his mother. The father of the
petitioner was served as Record Keeper in 3rd respondent Bank
at Visakhapatnam. The petitioner is the legal heir. The sisters
of the petitioner are married long back while his father was in
service.
It is stated that the 3rd respondent has agreed to provide
employment to the petitioner's mother. But the mother of the
petitioner has not accepted and requested the respondents to
provide employment to the petitioner. Subsequently, the
petitioner filed WP No.17246 of 2008 before the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and vide order dated
08.08.2008 this Court disposed of the writ petition directed 2
the respondents to take necessary action on the application
submitted by the petitioner for providing appointment on
compassionate grounds within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of a copy of that order. However, the
respondents did not consider the case of the petitioner for
providing employment on compassionate grounds.
It is further stated that the petitioner along with her
mother are surviving with meager earnings in the city of
Visakhapatnam and they are residing in a rented house. Their
day today life is also in miserable condition. As the
respondents issued notification calling for clerical staff in the
recent news papers, requested this court to direct the 3rd
respondent to appoint the petitioner in any suitable post under
compassionate appointment. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. counter affidavit came to be filed by the 3rd
respondent denying all the averments made in the petition
inter alia contended the 3rd respondent addressed a letter on
24.4.2005 itself to the petitioner by registered by stating that
"with reference to your application for compassionate
Appointment in the Bank's service, we have to advise that the
competent authority has examined your proposal for
compassionate appointment as per extent rules, regulations
and guidelines governing the compassionate appointment."
But the proposal for compassionate appointment does not
merit for consideration and hence declined by the competent
authority.
3
It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in its judgment dated 4.5.1994 in a case of Shri Umesh
Kumar Nagpal v State of Haryana and others1, has laid down
the conditions for compassionate appointment, but your above
referred application is not fulfilling the requisite conditions.
Further the petitioner has not brought forth any new facts for
reconsideration of his application. Hence the petitioner is not
eligible for compassionate appointment as per the Bank's
norms.
It is further stated that the petitioner is guilty of
suppression of material fact for not disclosing the facts of is
rejection of application by the bank on 24.4.2005 itself and
suppressing the same in the writ petition filed by him in WP
No.17246 of 2008 and obtained direction and again
approached the Bank and when the second time, the letter is
given by the Bank, the present writ petition is filed on the same
set of facts on the self same ground after a lapse of more than
three (3) years, which is not a reasonable time for fling writ
petition as such the petition is liable to be dismissed on the
ground of delay laches, suppression of material facts.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. On hearing both the learned counsels; upon perusing
the material available on record and the citation referred to
above by the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court
1 1994 (4) SCC 138 4
found that the petitioner has failed to substantiate the
requisite conditions for grant of compassionate appointment
and the Bank-3rd respondent itself sufficiently considered all
the aspects of the petitioner's family financial status etc. into
the petitioner's case in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court and found that the petitioner is not leading
penurious family life and he is having sufficient means and
compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as of right, as
laid down by the Apex Court, but it is an exception. Therefore,
the petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed in the present
writ petition.
6. Finding no merit in the instant petition and the same
is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order
as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending,
shall stand closed.
______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 02.05-2022 Gvl 5
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.11684 of 2012
Date : 02.05.2022
Gvl
