Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ingilila Mothi Priyanka vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 November, 2023
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION No. 42526 OF 2022
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Sri K. Asad Ahamed, learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of Sri Syed Azmatullah, learned Counsel for the Writ
Petitioner; Sri T. Kumara Ratnam, learned Counsel appearing
on behalf of Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned Standing
Counsel for the Respondent No.4; Sri Y.B. Ramesh, learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Services-IV and Ms. M. Hema
Latha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III.
2. The present Writ Petition is filed by the younger
daughter of the person (Mother) who died in harness on
25.09.2018 while working as School Assistant in Respondent
No.4 - Municipal Corporation School.
3. It is the case of the learned Counsel for the Writ
Petitioner that on 24.09.2020, the Writ Petitioner has submitted
an Application seeking compassionate appointment for herself
in any suitable post (Application dated 24.09.2020 is not placed
on record). Respondent No.4 has replied to the Application of
the Writ Petitioner by the Final Reply dated 04.09.2021 (Ex.P.1)
rejecting the request of the Writ Petitioner on the ground that
the Writ Petitioner's father is a pensioner inasmuch the Writ
Petitioner's father has worked in Government service and he has
retired from service, and therefore, the children of erstwhile
employee who died in harness (Smt. Gummadi Anantha
Syamala Jyothi) cannot be considered for compassionate
appointment.
4. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the
attention of this Court to an Order passed by the Hon'ble
Division Bench in the State of Telangana, represented by its
Principal Secretary to Government Vs N. Suresh Chandra in
W.A.No.700 of 2018 dated 29.11.2018.
5. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the
attention of this Court to (2nd un-numbered paragraph at Page
No.13) the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. The
relevant portion is usefully extracted hereunder:
"As already pointed out supra, merely because a
sizeable amount is paid to the widow towards the
terminal benefits of the deceased employee, it was
never considered sufficient to deny compassionate
appointment to the dependent widow or one of the
children of such employee. The same logic would be
applicable to the case on hand even if the service
pension of the father of the respondent is taken into
account.
The rejection of the claim of the respondent for
compassionate appointment therefore has no legs to
stand upon and the order of the learned Judge
holding to this effect and directing reconsideration of
his claim brooks no interference."
6. From the above extract, it is clear that the ground
taken by the Respondent No.4 to deny the extension of
compassionate appointment to the Writ Petitioner is arbitrary
and illegal inasmuch as the said issue is covered under the
Orders of the Hon'ble Division Bench (as above) to the extent
that the compassionate appointment shall be made available in
cases where the father has been receiving service pension.
7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4 would
sustain the Order passed by the Respondent No.4 to state that
the request made by the Writ Petitioner is not in consonance
with the scheme of compassionate appointment.
8. Since this Court is fortified by the binding precedent of
the Final Order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the
composite High Court dated 29.11.2018 in W.A.No.700 of 2018
in the State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary
to Government Vs N. Suresh Chandra (referred supra), it cannot
take a different view.
9. Consequently, the Writ Petitioner succeeds. Writ
Petition is allowed. The ground of rejection by the Respondent
No.4 is set aside, which is contrary to law. Respondent No.4 is
directed to consider the case of the Writ Petitioner under the
scheme of compassionate appointment. Let the same be
considered by the Respondent No.4 within a period of eight
weeks from today and communicate the decision forthwith to
the Writ Petitioner, in any case, not later than two weeks
thereafter. There shall be no Order as to costs.
10. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in
terms of this Order.
__________________________________________
(GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J)
Dt: 21.11.2023
JKS
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION No. 42526 OF 2022
21.11.2023
JKS
