C Suneel vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6608 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

                             W.P.No.9553 of 2021

ORDER:-

       The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for the following relief/s:-


       "... to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature
       of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.4055/2019A3,
       dated 13.10.2020 of the 5th respondent has rejected the application of

the petitioner for appointing him in any suitable post on compassionate grounds relying on circular memo 3548/ser.G/a2/2010-8, dated 24.03.2012 is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in a suitable post in the place of his late mother with all consequential benefits and to pass such other order or orders..."

2. Heard Sri Syed Azamthullah, learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Education appearing

for respondent nos.1 to 3 and Sri G. Srinivasulu Reddy, learned

Standing Counsel for Services of ZPP, MPP and Gram Panchayat

appearing for respondent nos. 4 & 5.

3. The present Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the

proceedings in Rc.No.4055/2019A3, dated 13.10.2020 issued by

the 5th respondent, who rejected the petitioner's application for

appointment for any suitable post on compassionate grounds

relying on Circular Memo No.3548/Ser.G/A2/2010-8, G.A.Ser.G)

Dept dated 24.03.2012. Hence, the petitioner prayed to set aside

the impugned proceedings dated 13.10.2020 and consequently

direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate

grounds in any suitable post.

4. The contention of the petitioner was that his mother expired

on 02.10.2017 while working as Craft Teacher (MTI) at Z.P.H.

School, Vadlamannadu, Gudlavalleru Mandal, Krishna District

and that he was an unemployee, being dependant on his mother,

the petitioner made a representation to the 3rd respondent on

27.09.2018 and requested for providing him, the compassionate

appointment in place of his late mother by enclosing all necessary

documents including family member certificate. However, the 5 th

respondent rejected his request relying on circular through the

above said impugned proceedings dated 13.10.2020. Hence, the

present Writ Petition got to be filed.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent

nos.4 & 5 would contend that the petitioner's father and mother

are not separated legally and the separation through agreement

dated 05.01.1991 is not valid. Hence, he cannot be construed that

he is dependent on his mother. He further contends that the

petitioner's father is getting pension and in view of circular memo

stated supra, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate

appointment on the above stated grounds.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

counter affidavit is very strenuous. His representation ought not

to have been rejected on the grounds stated supra and the circular

memo referred supra has been set aside by this Court. Merely

drawing family pension by the father of the petitioner is not a

ground to reject the compassionate appointment and further

stated that as per Section 29 of the Hindu Marriage Act,

customary divorce is valid. Learned counsel for the petitioner

further submits that the respondents are not oblivious of the fact

that the objective of the compassionate appointment is a social

security measure to support the family of the deceased. Even

assuming that the father of the petitioner was getting service

pension, but the same would not be sufficient to meet the needs of

the petitioner's family even though there was no legal separation

between his parents. He would further submit that the issue

involved in this Writ Petition is covered by the judgment of the

Division Bench of the Composite High Court for State of Telangana

and State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.16242 of 2012 dated

20.06.2013 wherein, it was held that drawing family pension is

not a ground for rejection of compassionate appointment. The

same view was also expressed in W.A.No.700 of 2018 dated

29.11.2018 and in W.P.No.30329 of 2019 dated 24.07.2019,

wherein the Government Memo dated 24.03.2012 was taken note

of and held that the impugned Memo was illegal and

unsustainable.

7. As the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is no more

res integra merely stating that the petitioner's father is being paid

pension is not a ground to deprive the benefit of compassionate

appointment to the petitioner. Hence, the representation of the

petitioner cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the

petitioner's father and mother are not legally separated and the

petitioner's father is drawing monthly pension and receiving

pension and pensionary benefits by the father of the petitioner, is

not a ground to reject his request and as such the petitioner is

eligible for compassionate appointment.

7. Considering the submissions made by both the learned

counsel and in view of the Judgments stated supra, the impugned

proceedings in Rc.No.4055/2019A3, dated 13.10.2020 issued by

the 5th respondent are set aside and the respondents are directed

to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate

appointment within a period of two (2) months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order.

8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No

costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 08-09-2022 EPS

Note:

Issue CC in one week.

B/o. EPS

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

W.P.No.9553 of 2021

Date: 08-09-2022

EPS