Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Constitution Of India For The ... vs "Compassionate Appointment - No ... on 19 January, 2023

       HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

             WRIT PETITION (AT) No.120 of 2021

ORDER :

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for the following relief:-

"...to set aside the impugned proceedings vide Lr.No.731/2015- P9, dated 29.9.2015 issued by 3rd respondent rejecting the request of the Applicant herein seeking compassionate appointment, as illegal, irregular and violative of principles of natural justice and consequentially appoint the applicant on compassionate grounds in a suitable post in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders......."

2. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the

petitioner was initially appointed as an Attender in 3rd

respondent department and while in service he was expired

on 27.07.2002 due to ill health. Thereafter, in the year

2003, the petitioner herein made an application to the

respondent authorities with a request to appoint him on

compassionate grounds. The said application was rejected

by the respondents vide proceedings D.S.No.1200/04/P1

dated 18.06.2004 on the ground that petitioner's mother

Smt K. Narayanamma has been working as Sweeper in

DRDA. In the year 2012, the petitioner's mother

superannuated without any pension facility. Thereafter, due

to financial crisis, the petitioner made several

representations to the 3rd respondent for appointment on

compassionate grounds. But, the 3rd respondent has

rejected the claim of the petitioner as his mother has been

working in DRDA and stated that as per Government

Orders, no person is having source of income the deceased

family and the eligible persons in the family will provide

appointment on compassionate grounds and hence there is

no possibility to provide compassionate appointment.

Questioning the same, the present writ petition has been

filed.

3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd

respondent denying all the allegations made in the petition

and inter alia contended that the petitioner has submitted

compassionate appointment proposals to this respondent

office on 24.06.2003 without enclosing "No Earning

Member" Certificate that was mentioned in the check list.

Providing employment to the petitioner under

compassionate grounds the proposals scrutinized by the

then Executive Officer and observed that the wife of the

deceased is also employee working in DRDA and hence

rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated

18.06.2004. it is also stated that after rejection of the

proposals in the year 2004, the petitioner kept silent up to

06.09.2015. it is also stated that once rejected the

compassionate appointment proposals with valid reasons

and existing Government Rules not reviewed by this office

and also submits that the petitioner responded after lapse of

11 years and after retirement of his mother from service is

not justified. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. Heard Sri Saripalli Subrahmanyam, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned

Government Pleader for Services-IV and Sri G. Srinivasulu

Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

respondents.

5. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the rejection for compassionate appointment of

the petitioner is highly illegal and arbitrary. He submits

that due to unavoidable circumstances in the petitioner's

family, he made a petition in Praja vani vide Case No.20152-

3515341 dated 7.9.2015 to the 2nd respondent requesting to

appoint him on compassionate grounds since his father died

while in service in the 3rd respondent department and he is

also eligible for the said appointment. Thereafter, he made

another application dated 30.09.2015 to the 3rd respondent.

However, the 3rd respondent has rejected the claim of the

petitioner. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to

pass appropriate orders as stated supra.

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel while

reiterating the contents made in the counter, contended

that, as per G.O.Ms.No.687 General Administration

(Services-A) Department, dated 03.10.1977 - Providing

employment under compassionate grounds there being no

other earning member in the family and according to this

office D.Dis.No1200/2004,P1, dated 18.06.2004, the

petitioner's mother is working in DRDA hence the proposals

of the petitioner were rejected. He also stated that once the

compassionate appointment proposals were rejected as per

existing Government Orders/valid reasons not

reviewed/considered. He also stated that after rejection

proposals of the petitioner in the year 2004, he kept silent

up to 2015 and he had not appealed higher authorities for

justice. Now suddenly after lapse of 11 years, he requesting

for employment after retirement of his mother which is not

justified as per existing Government Orders and Rules.

7. Learned Government Pleader has placed reliance on

a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in The

State of Maharashtra and another Versus Ms. Madhuri

Maruti Vidhate1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that

"Compassionate appointment - No entitlement of

compassionate appointment after number of years from death

of deceased employee". It was also held that "Applying the

law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the

facts of the case on hand, to appoint the respondent now on

compassionate ground shall be contrary to the object and

purpose of appointment on compassionate ground. The

respondent cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased

employee, i.e., her mother. Even otherwise, she shall not be

entitled to appointment on compassionate ground after a

number of years from the death of the deceased employee."

Law Finder Doc Id# 2042274

8. In another case reported in Fertilizers and

Chemicals Travancore Ltd and others v. Anusree K.B.2,

wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that :

"Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and considering the observations made hereinabove and the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father, who died in the year 1995. After a period of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. If such an appointment is made now and/or after a period of 14/24 years, the same shall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided."

9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of

the case and upon perusing the citations referred to above,

this Court observed that as per law laid down in catena of

decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, on the appointment on

compassionate ground, for all the government vacancies

equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as

mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

However, appointment on compassionate ground offered to a

AIR 2022 Supreme Court 4766

dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the

said norms. The compassionate ground is a concession and

not a right.

10. In the instant case, this Court observed that the

petitioner shall not be entitled to the appointment on

compassionate ground on the death of his father, because,

after lapse of 11 years, he has preferred this petition

requesting for appointment on compassionate ground which

is not justified under law. Therefore, there is no merit in the

instant petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.