Dubba Sravan vs The State Of Telangna And 4 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 1893 Tel

Item No.9

       THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                          AND
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

                           W.A.No.27 OF 2020

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)

1.    On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant had

absented himself though the matter was passed over twice. As a result,

the same has been listed today for dismissal. Today, learned counsel

appears and states that he could not login into the hearing on the last date

due to network problems.


2.    The present appeal is directed against an order dated 30.09.2019

passed by the learned Single Judge whereby, a writ petition filed by the

appellant/writ petitioner (W.P.No.21610 of 2019) praying inter alia for

issuing directions to the respondents Nos.2 to 4/Municipal Authorities to

cancel the appointment of his younger brother, respondent No.5 on the

post of Junior Assistant in the respondents No.2 to 4/Municipal

Corporation, that was granted on compassionate grounds, upon the

demise of the father of the parties on 12.12.2017, and to consider the

him for appointment as a Driver.

3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. Sri Dubba

Gangaram, father of appellant and the respondent No.5 was employed as

a Driver in the respondents No.3/Municipalility. He expired on

12.12.2017 while in service. On an application moved by the respondent

No.5, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds on the demise of

the father, the respondents No.2 to 4 issued proceedings dated

31.01.2019, appointing him as a Junior Assistant. Aggrieved by the said

order of appointment, the appellant filed the subject writ petition stating

inter alia that the respondent No.5 ought not to have been granted

appointment on compassionate grounds and that the mother of the

parties had colluded with the respondent No.5. Without intimating the

appellant and without obtaining his consent, the mother had approached

the respondents No.2 to 4 for appointment of the respondent No.5 on

compassionate grounds. It has been observed in the impugned order that

in terms of the compassionate appointment scheme of the respondents

No.2 to 4/ Municipal Corporation, a spouse/dependant family member of

the deceased, who expires while in harness, is entitled to be appointed on

compassionate grounds. The said scheme is silent as to which member

of the family should be given preference. Noting that the appellant/writ

petitioner is already married and living separately whereas, the widow of

late Dubba Gangaram is living at some other place along with the

younger son/the respondent No.5, the court held that it cannot be said

that the appointment of the respondent No.5 made on compassionate

grounds, is either illegal or in contravention of the scheme.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petition assails the

impugned order on the ground that the learned Single Judge ought to

have taken note of the fact that there was no understanding between the

parties as to who would be given compassionate appointment and the

mother is biased towards the respondent No.5, that the mother has

supported respondent No.5 for securing an appointment on

compassionate grounds without taking the appellant into confidence. He

further submits that the appellant has a driving licence and is eligible for

appointment as a Driver, but his claim has been wrongly ignored by the

respondents No.2 to 4/Municipal Corporation in favour of the

respondent No.5.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Ramgopal Rao, learned counsel for the

respondent No.5 supports the impugned judgment and states that it is the

widow of the deceased employee (mother of the appellant and the

respondent No.5) who had approached the respondents No.2 to 4 with an

application for appointing the respondent No.5 on compassionate

grounds. He submits that the appellant had separated from his family on

the demise of the father and is living with his family elsewhere.

Another sibling of the appellant and the respondent No.5, namely a

daughter is already married and settled in her matrimonial home. Since

there was no other earning member in the family, the mother had

approached the Department requesting to grant compassionate

appointment to the younger son, respondent No.5.

6. The whole purpose of granting appointment on compassionate

grounds is to provide financial succour to the bereaved family on the

loss of its sole bread earner. Compassionate appointment cannot be

claimed as a matter of right. Such an appointment is only granted to

redeem the family in distress. As recently as in the case of State of

Himachal Pradesh v Parkash Chand reported as (2019) 4 SCC 285, the

Supreme Court has restated its consistent view that compassionate

appointment is not a matter of right and that it must be governed by the

terms on which the State has based its policy of offering

employment/assistance to a member of the family of the deceased

government employee. (Also refer: Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of

Haryana ((1994) 4 SCC 138), SBI v. Kunti Tiwary ((2004) 7 SCC 271),

Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja ((2004) 7 SCC 265),

SBI v. Somvir Singh ((2007) 4 SCC 778), Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State

of Maharashtra ((2008) 11 SCC 384), Union of India v. Shashank

Goswami ((2012) 11 SCC 307, SBI v. Surya Narain Tripathi ((2014) 15

SCC 739) and Canara Bank v. M.Mahesh Kumar ((2015) 7 SCC 412)).

7. We have enquired from learned counsel for the appellant if the

scheme of compassionate appointment governing the respondents No.2

to 4/Municipal Corporation permits appointment of more than one

family member on compassionate grounds. Learned counsel concedes

that there is no such provision in the scheme. It is not as if the appellant

was not gainfully employed. He is working in the private sector as a

driver. On the demise of his father, he had moved out of the common

house and started to reside elsewhere with his wife and two children,

leaving his mother and younger brother to fend for themselves.

8. In view of the fact that the widow of the deceased employee who

was herself eligible under the scheme to apply for compassionate

appointment, had approached the Department and requested that her

son/respondent No.5 be appointed on compassionate grounds and he

qualified in terms of the scheme, the respondents No.2 to 4 cannot be

faulted in appointing him. The plea of the appellant that being the elder

son in the family, he had a prior claim for being appointed on

compassionate grounds, is wholly untenable and is rejected.

9. We therefore concur with the findings returned by the learned

Single Judge and uphold the impugned order while dismissing the

present appeal as merit less along with the pending applications, if any.

_________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________ B.VIJAYSEN REDDY, J

01.07.2021 Lrkm/pln