Telangana High Court
Mannem Venkat Ramana vs State Of Telangana on 29 October, 2022
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
1 RRN,J
WP No.38177 of 2018
*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
+W.P. No.38177 OF 2018
% 29-10-2022
#Mannem Venkat Ramana
....petitioner
Vs.
$ State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary, Tribal Welfare (BUD & EDN) Department,
Hyderabad and two others
.... Respondents
!Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Mannem Mallaiah Rao
Counsel for the Respondents : G.P for Social Welfare for respondents
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (2005) 6 SCC 705
2 RRN,J
WP No.38177 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
W.P. No.38177 OF 2018
Between:
Mannem Venkat Ramana
...Petitioner
And
State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary, Tribal Welfare (BUD & EDN) Department,
Hyderabad and two others
... Respondents
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 29.10.2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
__________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
3 RRN,J
WP No.38177 of 2018
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.38177 of 2018
ORDER:
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Government
Pleader for the respondents.
2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus
declaring the Memo No.1629/TW.Edn.A1/2017-6, dt.27.08.2018
issued by the first respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner
for providing compassionate appointment to him on the ground of
technicalities as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential
direction to the 1st respondent to provide him the compassionate
appointment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.378, G.A.(Ser.A) Department,
dt.24.08.1999.
3. It has been contended by the petitioner that his mother Smt.
Mannem Manikyamma, aged 47 years was working as Kamati in
Government S.T. Boys' Hostel, Palakeedu, and his father expired
long back. On 02.03.2007, his mother left from his house as usual
and went somewhere. Since then, her whereabouts are not known
4 RRN,J
WP No.38177 of 2018
and the family of the petitioner has searched for her in all places
and waited for sufficient time but she did not return home and went
missing.
3.1 It is further contended by the petitioner that he was aged 20
years at the time of his mother went missing. The petitioner and
his sister with the help of their relatives searched for their mother,
but in vain. Hence, they lodged a police complaint with
Nidamanuru Police Station, Nalgonda District, and basing on their
complaint, the police registered a case vide Cr. No.214 of 2014 on
22.12.2014, under the head of woman missing. After causing
enquiries and making all possible efforts to trace out their mother,
the matter was referred to be unknown, undetectable in nature and
submitted a final report to the concerned Magistrate.
3.2 It is further contended by the petitioner that the Government
have issued the G.O.Ms.No.378,G.A.(Services-A) Department,
dt.24.08.1999, guidelines for providing employment to the
dependents of Government employees who have disappeared and
whose whereabouts are not known for more than 7(seven) years.
The operative portion of the said G.O.Ms No.378 reads as under:
5 RRN,J
WP No.38177 of 2018
"Government after careful examination of the matter,
hereby directs that compassionate appointments be
provided to the dependents of the Government
employees, who have disappeared and whose
whereabouts are not known for more than 7(seven)
years in accordance with the existing instructions on
the scheme of compassionate appointments to the
dependents of deceased Government employees who
die in harness, putting following conditions:
a) A request for grant of the benefit of compassionate
appointments can be considered only after a lapse
of 7 (seven) years from the date from which the
Government Servant has been missing, provided
that:
(i) An FIR (First Information Report) to this effect has
been lodged with police.
(ii) The police report shall certify that the missing
Government employee is not traceable; and
(iii) The competent authority feels that the case is
genuine
b) This benefit shall not be applicable to the case of a
Government servant:
(i) Who had less than 7 (seven) years to retire on the
date from which the FIR is filed: and/or
(ii) Who is suspected to have committed fraud or
suspected to have joined any terrorist/extremist
organization or suspected to have gone abroad.
c) While considering the request for compassionate
appointment the result of the police investigation
shall also be taken into account
d) Applicants for compassionate appointment from
the dependents of such missing Government
employees shall be entertained within a period of
one year from the date of completion of 7(seven)
years from the date of filing FIR with police.
6 RRN,J
WP No.38177 of 2018
e) A decision on any such request for compassionate
appointment shall be taken only at the level of the
Secretary to Government of the respective
administrative Department concerned and only
after receipt of the approval from the concerned
Secretary to Government, the respective
appointing authorities shall issue necessary
orders to appoint the eligible dependent of such
missing Government employees as per the existing
instructions on the scheme of compassionate
appointments to the dependents of deceased
Government employees in addition to the above
conditions, if there is a vacancy readily available
in the department. In case when there are no
vacancies available in the department to appoint
such eligible dependent of the missing
Government employee, such cases have to be
referred to Nodal Authorities for allotting such
dependents to any other department in the
District as ordered in G.O.Ms.No.427,
Genl.Admn.(Ser.A) Department, dt.01.07.1991
read with G.O.Ms.No.533, Genl.Admn.(Ser.A)
Department dt. 05.09.1991 and G.O.Ms.No.215,
Genl.Admn. (Ser.A) Department dt. 08.04.1993.
f) A bond shall be obtained from the dependent of
such missing Government employee, whose
whereabouts are not known for more than
7(seven) years that in the event of appearance of
such missing Government employee at a later date
or proved that such missing Government employee
is alive anywhere, the services of the person so
appointed are liable for termination.
7 RRN,J
WP No.38177 of 2018
As such, the petitioner submitted an application to the 3rd
respondent on 12.01.2015 requesting him to provide employment
under compassionate grounds in terms of the said G.O.
3.3 After receipt of application of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent
addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent by sending proposals for
obtaining prior approval from the Government. In the said
proposals, under the caption of conditions and observations at
Point No.(a) (iii), it is observed as follows:
"I have gone through the case and feel that the case is
genuine as the missing Government employee Mannyam
Manikyamma has went somewhere due to her mental
illness and found missing beyond 7(seven) years and in
this case no foul play is noticed as per final report of the
Nidamanuru P.S. Besides, this son of Venkata Ramana is
physically low growth by birth of his age and he is a
disabled candidate with 48% as per the certificate for
person with disability issued Medical Board at District
headquarters Hospital Nalgonda on 12-07-2010. Hence,
It is justified to provide a compassionate appointment to
the dependent Venkat Ramana in place of his missing
mother Mannyam Manikyamma on humanitarian
grounds to meet the ends of natural justice."
The 2nd respondent sought clarification with regard to the
delay in filing police complaint. The delay was properly
explained by the petitioner. It is further contended by the
8 RRN,J
WP No.38177 of 2018
petitioner that his explanation was not considered and the
impugned rejection order had been passed by the respondent
authorities and while rejecting the application, the Authorities
observed as under:
"After careful examination of the matter in detail, as per
G.O.Ms.No.378,G.A(Ser.A) department dated 24.08.1999,
it is construed that an FIR should be filed immediately
after noticing that the Government employee was missing
and after completion of seven (7) years from the date of
filing of FIR, if police reports that the missing employee
is not detected then only the case has to be considered
for compassionate appointment. Where as in the instance
case FIR was filed after completion of seven (7) years from
the date of missing of the Government employee and the
police have given report only after 6 months from the filing
of FIR. The proposal is against the provisions of
G.O.Ms.No.378,G.A.(Ser.A) Department,dt.24-08-1999.
While the petitioner has not submitted any medical
reports pertaining to Smt. Manikyamma. As such, the
request of Sri M. Venkataratnam S/o Smt. Manikyamma
is not in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.378, dt.24.08.1999
and it is not feasible for consideration. Hence, the request
for compassionate appointment is rejected.
Impugned by above rejection order, the present Writ Petition
is filed by the petitioner.
4. Respondents filed counter reiterating the contents of
G.O.M.sNo.378 and further contended that in the instant case, FIR
was filed after inordinate delay of 7 years from the date of missing
9 RRN,J
WP No.38177 of 2018
of the petitioner's mother and the police had given report only after
6 months from the date of FIR. The petitioner has not submitted
any medical papers pertaining to Smt. Manikyamma. Hence, the
petitioner's request for compassionate appointment is rejected.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that
though the delay in lodging the FIR was properly explained by the
petitioner, the respondents have not considered the same, and
rejected the request of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Smt. Rani Kusum Vs. Smt. Kanchan Devi1 wherein it
was observed as follows:
"All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice.
The language employed by the draftsman of procedural
law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains
that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance
the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party
should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of
participating in the process of justice dispensation.
Unless compelled by express and specific language of
the Statute, the provisions of the CPC or any other
procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a
manner which would leave the court helpless to meet
extraordinary situations in the ends of justice.
(2005) 6 SCC 705
10 RRN,J
WP No.38177 of 2018
The mortality of justice at the hands of law troubles a
Judge's conscience and points an angry interrogation at
the law reformer.
The procedural law so dominates in certain systems as
to overpower substantive rights and substantial justice.
The humanist rule that procedure should be the
handmaid, not the mistress, of legal justice compels
consideration of vesting a residuary power in judges to
act ex debito justiciae where the tragic sequel otherwise
would be wholly inequitable. - Justice is the goal of
jurisprudence - procedural, as much as substantive.
A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as
mandatory, the procedural law is always subservient to
and is in aid to justice. Any interpretation which eludes
or frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be followed.
Procedural law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not
an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural
prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a
lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of
justice.
Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.
6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents would
submit that the authorities have already rejected the application of
the petitioner on 27.08.2018 basing on technicalities and he has no
right to ask any Compassionate Appointment against the
11 RRN,J
WP No.38177 of 2018
GO.Ms.No.378 GA (Services-A) Department, dated 24-08-1999.
Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
7. Having considered the rival contentions of both parties, the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rani Kusum (supra)
and taking into consideration of facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court is of the considered view that delay might have
been occurred on account of mental agony undergone by the
petitioner having put in relentless efforts to know whereabouts of
his mother, apart from his physically handicapped. So, in such
circumstances, the only delay aspect cannot curtail his right to
livelihood. In view of the above, a direction to the respondents to
reconsider the request of the petitioner would meet the ends of
justice.
8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the
respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh for
compassionate appointment in accordance with law and pass
appropriate Orders within a period of (8) eight weeks from the date
of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
12 RRN,J
WP No.38177 of 2018
As a sequent of which, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending
in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
29th October, 2022
BDR
NOTE: LR TO BE MARKED
