Dharavath Thirumal vs The Joint Director Of Animal ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2865 Tel

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

                     WRIT PETITION No.9551 of 2021
ORDER:

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned

Endt.Roc.No.34/B/2020 dated 08.06.2020 rejecting the claim of the

petitioner under the scheme of compassionate appointment in the

place of his deceased father, who died while in service.

A consequential direction is sought to the respondents to reconsider

the claim of the petitioner on compassionate grounds.

2. The petitioner filed applications dated 06.01.2020 and

20.02.2020 seeking compassionate appointment of account of the

death of his father and the same were rejected vide the impugned

proceedings dated 08.06.2020 on the ground that the petitioner is not

eligible for appointment as his mother and father are pensioners. The

petitioner stated that the he belongs to poor ST community; studied

up to X class; his father, late Dasru, died in harness on 24.02.2019,

while working as Office Subordinate at the Government Veterinary

Hospital (PVC), Khanapur Village and Mandal of Warangal (Rural)

District. After sudden death of his father, the petitioner filed the

aforesaid applications, which were rejected under the impugned

proceedings on the ground that his mother is a pensioner. According to

the petitioner, such rejection is arbitrary, unjust, improper and illegal.

3. Heard Mr. Santhapur Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel for

the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Animal

Husbandry.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner

cannot be treated as an earning member merely because his mother is

receiving service pension and family pension. The object of

compassionate appointment is a social security measure to help the

families of deceased Government employees. Though mother of the

petitioner is getting service pension and also family pension, the same

is not sufficient to meet her medical needs. He stated that the issue

involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by a judgment of a

Division Bench of this Court in WP.No.16242 of 2012 dated 20.06.2013

wherein it was held that family pension is not a ground for rejection of

compassionate appointment. The same view is expressed by a learned

Single Judge in WP.No.27465 of 2017 dated 30.08.2017, which was

affirmed by a Division Bench in WA.No.700 of 2018 dated 29.11.2018

and another Division Bench in WP.No.30329 of 2019 dated 24.07.2019

wherein the Government Memo dated 24.03.2012 was taken note of.

He further stated that in view of the above judgments of this Court,

the impugned memo is illegal and unsustainable.

5. The issue involved in this writ petition is no more res integra.

It was held in several decisions of this court that family pension cannot

be treated as an income. In WP.No.16242 of 2013 dated 20.06.2013 it

was held as under:

"... Merely because family pension is being paid to the wife of the deceased, the same is not a ground to deprive the benefit of compassionate appointment under this scheme notified by the Government for the children of the deceased who die in harness."

In WA.No.700 of 2018 dated 29.11.2018 (while dealing with a

situation wherein compassionate appointment claimants' father was

drawing service pension), it was held as under:

"In STATE OF U.P. V/s. BRAHM DATT SHARMA [(1987) 2 SCC 179] , the Supreme Court made it clear that pension is not a bounty but a right earned by the Government servant on the basis of the length of service rendered by him. The same

principle was reiterated in D.D.TEWARI (DEAD) THROUGH LRs V/s. UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD [(2014) 8 SCC 894]."

In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the

impugned proceedings are unsustainable and liable to the set aside.

6. The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to

consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment by

thoroughly examining his financial condition and eligibility as per

Rules. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two (2)

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J October 1, 2021 DSK