Telangana High Court

S. Ravi Babu Another vs Prof. Jayasankar T.S.A. ... on 1 November, 2022

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

                  W.P. No. 15476 of 2017
Between:
S.Ravi Babu and another
                                                     ... Petitioners
                              And

Prof. Jayasankar T.S. Agricultural University
                                                ... Respondent

           JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 01.11.2022

     THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA



1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers        :        yes
   may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
   marked to Law Reporters/Journals?             :       yes

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to
   see the fair copy of the Judgment?                :     yes




                                      ____________________
                                       SUREPALLI NANDA, J
                                                             WP_15476_2017
                               2                                     SN,J




      THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                  W.P. No. 15476 of 2017
% 01.11.2022

Between:

# S.Ravi Babu and another
                                                  ..... Petitioners

and
$ Prof. Jayasankar T.S. Agricultural University
                                                   .....Respondent


< Gist:
> Head Note:



! Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr S.Satyanarayana Rao

^Counsel for the Respondents:
                            Standing counsel for respondent




? Cases Referred:
                                                                     WP_15476_2017
                                    3                                        SN,J




     THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                     W.P. No. 15476 of 2017
ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ, order or

direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of

Mandamus and call for records pertaining to the present

impugned Memo No.12041/Com.Appt.Ser.(NT)/A2/2015,

dated 12.08.2016 of the respondent and set aside or quash

the same by declaring the entire action of the respondent in

rejecting the genuine claim of the 1st petitioner for

appointment under the scheme of Compassionate grounds on

the untenable ground that the other parents was retired from

service and is in receipt of service pension as highly illegal,

arbitrary, unjust, and contrary to law laid down by the High

Court in W.P.No.16242 of 2013, dated 20.06.2013 in the

similar subject matter and consequently to direct the

respondent to re-consider the claim of the 1st petitioner for

appointment under the scheme of Compassionate grounds of

Medical invalidation scheme in a suitable post without WP_15476_2017 4 SN,J

reference to the present impugned Memo

No.12041/Com./Appt./Ser.(NT)/A2/2015, dated 12.08.2016

of the respondent.

3. The order impugned passed by the respondent

dated 12.08.2016 vide Memo No.

12041/Com./Appt./Ser.(NT) /A2/2015, dated

12.08.2016 reads as under:

"With reference to the letter 6th cited, the Principal Scientist (Agronomy) & Head, Agricultural Research Institute, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad is informed that, the University vide Proc.No.103/SC/A1/2012, dated 05.05.2012 has adopted Circular Memo No.3548/Ser.G/A2/2010-8, General Administration (Ser.G) Department, dated24.03.2012, wherein the Government have clarified to all the appointing authorities, that, pension can be treated as 'earning' and pensioner can be treated as an 'earning member" and also that the dependant children of a Government employee, who died while in service, cannot be considered for appointment under the scheme of compassionate appointment, when the other parent, who had retired from service, and is in receipt of service pension.

Hence, it is requested to inform Sri S.Ravi Babu, Son of Smt S.Ramulamma, who worked as Agricultural workman at Agricultural Research Institute, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad and retired from service on Medical Invalidation on 30.05.2015, that his representation for appointment under the scheme of Compassionate grounds, cannot be considered as Sri S.Anthaiah, the other parent of the applicant was retired from service and is in receipt of service pension."

WP_15476_2017 5 SN,J

PERUSED THE RECORD.

4. A bare perusal of the order impugned in Memo No.

12041/Com./Appt./Ser.(NT)/A2/2015, dated 12.08.2016 of

the respondent herein clearly indicates that the request of the

petitioners to consider compassionate appointment to the 1st

petitioner cannot be considered since the 2nd petitioner, who

is the mother of the 1st petitioner retired from service on

30.05.2015 voluntarily on Medical Invalidation and is

receiving service pension every month, and further Sri

S.Anthaiah, the other parent of the 1st petitioner and husband

of the 2nd petitioner is also a service pensioner receiving

monthly pension.

5. Para 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the

respondent reads as under:

"It is submitted that the Government has issued Cir.Memo No.3548/Ser.G/A2/2010-8 General Administration (Ser.G Department, dated 24.0.2012 that the object of providing compassionate appointment to the dependants of a government servant dying in harness is to mitigate hardship caused to the family of the deceased on account of his unexpected death and it is granted only when the financial condition of the family is in penury. Where one of the parents of the applicant is in service or in receipt of service pension and family pension, and lumpsum retirement benefits the dependant child is not entitled to seek compassionate appointment, since there is no financial distress. It is further observed that pension is an allowance or stipend or deferred salary paid to a Government employee WP_15476_2017 6 SN,J

in consideration of his past service. The petitioner, therefore, can be regarded as an earning member of the family. The family which has a person drawing pension cannot be said to be without an earning member and consequently the scheme of compassionate appointment cannot be invoked to the dependant in such case. The said G.O. has been adopted by the University vide Proc.No.103/SC/A1/2012, dated 05.05.2012. In view of the above said orders, the 1st petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment."

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the

petitioner and also learned standing counsel for the

respondent that the issue involved in this writ petition

is squarely covered by the judgment dated 01.10.2021

passed in W.P.No.9551 of 2021.

7. 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. A judgment

dated 20.06.2013 of the Division Bench of this Court in

W.P.No.16242 of 2013, dealing with an identical situation as

in the present case observed as follows:

"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"

WP_15476_2017 7 SN,J

8. 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.

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

with a situation wherein compassionate appointment was

rejected on the ground that 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) THROUGLRs V/s. UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD [(2014) 8 SCC 894]."

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

the impugned Memo No. 12041/Com.Appt.Ser.(NT)/A2/2015,

dated 12.08.2016 of the respondent is unsustainable and

liable to be set aside.

11. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed setting aside

the impugned Memo No. 12041/Com.Appt.Ser.(NT)/A2/2015, WP_15476_2017 8 SN,J

dated 12.08.2016 of the respondent and the respondent is

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. However,