K. Jai Barath vs The Union Of India,
2022 Latest Caselaw 4890 Tel

     THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                  W.P. No. 23372 of 2013
ORDER:

Heard Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel for

the petitioners and Sri Praveen Kumar Gadi, learned standing

counsel appearing for respondents.

2. The petitioner filed this writ petition to issue, a writ of

Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in

issuing the proceedings No.I-48A/Admn/2010.Compassionate

/4360, dated 22/23.02.2010 and letter No.1-

48A/Admn./2010/1714, dated 30.10.2014 issued by the 2nd

respondent rejecting the case of the petitioners for

appointment of compassionate grounds as illegal, improper,

unjust, arbitrary and contrary to the proceedings

No.19(9)/2012/D(Lab), dated 08.08.2012 of the 1st

respondent and further direct the respondents to consider the

case of he 1st petitioner for appointment on compassionate

grounds in any suitable post.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

WP_23372_2013 2 SN,J

a) The father of the petitioner was appointed as Mazdoor

on 01.01.1975 and while he was in service as Grade II in the

pay scale of Rs.950-1150-E.B-25-1400 with basic pay of

Rs.3,875/-, died on 17.05.1998 leaving behind the petitioners

and three sisters.

b) The 2nd petitioner made a representation on 10.09.1998

to the concerned authorities for compassionate grounds. But

the respondent authorities instead of issuing appointment

under compassionate grounds as per eligibility/educational

qualifications, made her to compete with other candidates in

oral interview conducted on 22.09.2003 and rejected her

candidature on the ground that she failed in the interview and

to qualify for the appointment on compassionate grounds.

c) The 2nd petitioner relinquished her rights to get

compassionate appointment to the 1st petitioner as he is only

one son to look after the entire family and the 2nd petitioner is

not in a position to bear the entire family in these days

without having any source of income due to harness and ill-

health. Therefore, the 1st petitioner made a representation on

02.01.2006 as he attained majority in the year 2000 to the WP_23372_2013 3 SN,J

respondents requesting appointment on compassionate

grounds by enclosing relevant documents.

d) As there was no response on the said representation,,

the 1st petitioner made another representation on 15.02.2010

and the same was rejected on 22/23.02.2010 that the

compassionate appointment shall be considered within three

years of time frame and that the 2nd petitioner has already

been considered earlier for appointment on compassionate

grounds, but she failed to qualify for appointment on

compassionate grounds and that there are no recruitments in

the Mint at present.

e) The father of the 1st petitioner died in the year 1998

while in service, after his death, his mother has been

receiving family pension, entire family consisting of five

members.

f) The 1st petitioner approached the Central Administrative

Tribunal seeking to condone the delay in M.A.No.919 of 2012

in OASR No.3621 of 2012 and the same was rejected on

21.01.2013 that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to maintain

the OA. Hence, this writ petition is filed.

                                                            WP_23372_2013
                                   4                                SN,J

4. The Counsel for the Petitioner places reliance on

the following judgments and contends that the Writ

Petition has to be allowed as prayed for.

a) Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated

25.02.2021 passed in W.P.No.24086/2004.

b) Judgment of the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High

Court dated 01.10.2021 passed in W.A.No.206/2021.

5. The Counsel for the Respondent places reliance on

the following judgments and contends that the Writ

Petition has to be dismissed.

a) Judgment of the Apex Court datd 23.05.2012 passed in

Civil Appeal No.6224/2008 reported in Union of India and

another v Shashank Goswami and another1. Paras 9 and 10

b) Judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India & Others

v. Amrita Sinha, dt. 11.12.2021 reported in 2021 Law Suit

(SC) 834. Para 10.

    (2012) 11 SCC 307
                                                          WP_23372_2013
                              5                                   SN,J

c) Judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2004) 7 SCC

265 in Punjab National Bank & Others v. Ashwini Kumar

Tanjea in Civil Appeal No.5256/2004 decided on 16.08.2004.

Para 7.

6. Perused the record :

7. The facts as borne on record and as evidenced by

material documents filed by the Petitioner herein and

also undisputed by the Respondents are as follows :

a) The 1st Petitioner vide his representation dt. 02.01.2006

and 15.02.2006 addressed to the General Manager, India

Government Mint, Hyderabad, A.P., made a request for

providing compassionate appointment.

b)   Vide         impugned           proceedings          No.I-

48A/Admn/2010/Compassionate/4360,        dt.   22/23.02.2010,

the 3rd Respondent herein rejected 1st Petitioner's request for

compassionate appointment and subsequently in pursuance to

the interim orders of this Hon'ble Court dt. 04.10.2013 passed

in WPMP NO.28692/2013 in W.P.No.23372 of 2013 directing

the Respondents to consider the case of the 1st Petitioner's WP_23372_2013 6 SN,J

appointment on compassionate grounds in any suitable post,

the Deputy General Manager, India Government Mint, IDA

Phase-II, Cherlapally, R.R. District, Hyderabad - 500 051,

considered 1st Petitioner's case vide Proceedings dt.

30.10.2014 vide No.I-48A/Admn/2010/ 1714 and rejected the

same

c) I.A.No.2/2019 in WP No.23372/2013is filed seeking a

direction to the 2nd Respondent to reconsider the application

of the 1st Petitioner for appointment on compassionate

grounds as per the office Memo F.No.14014/3/2011-Estt(D),

dt. 26.07.2012 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of

Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (Department of

Personnal and Training).

d) I.A.No.1/2019 in W.P.No.23372/2013 is filed to permit

the Petitioner to seek amendment prayer by adding the

following after dt.22/23.02.2010 in 5th line of main prayer in

the Writ Petition as under :

"and letter No.I-48A/Admn/2010/1714, dt. 30.10.2014 issued by the 2nd Respondent".

                                                                      WP_23372_2013
                                   7                                          SN,J

The said I.A.No.1/2019 was ordered as prayed for as per Court's order dt.28.06.2022.

8. The last 3 paras of the impugned proceedings No.I-

48A/Admn/ 2010.compassionate/ 4360, dt. 22/23.02.2010,

are extracted hereunder:

"The candidature of Smt. Swaroopa, W/o. Late Jaipalswamy, F.NO.819, was again considered for compassionate appointment in the year 2003 alongwith other candidates and called for a oral interview on 22.09.2003 vide this Mint Memo No.I-240/pers/maz/03/2550 dt. 11.09.2003. However, the said candidate did not qualify for appointment in the Screening Committee's opinion/interview.

As per orders, the compassionate appointment shall be considered within 03 years of time frame After 03 years, if compassionate appointment is not possible to be offered to the applicant, his case will be finally closed, and will not be considered again.

Since the case of Smt Swaroopa, wife of Late Shri K.Jaipalswamy T.No.819 has already been considered earlier for appointment on compassionate grounds and she failed to qualify for appointment on compassionate grounds, and also there are no recruitments in this Mint at present as per the directions, it is hereby informed that we are not in a position to again consider your request for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the orders.

No further correspondence will be entertained in this regard".

                                                                        WP_23372_2013
                                     8                                          SN,J

9. The subsequent impugned proceedings Letter No.I-

48A/Admn/2010/1714, dt. 30.10.2014 issued by the 2nd

Respondent reads as under :

Proc.No. I-48A/Admn/2010/1714 Dated : 30.10.2014

To Sri K.Jai Barath, S/o Late K.Jaipal Swamy, Ms.K.Saroopa, W/o Late K. Jaipal Swamy, H.No.23-4-65/A, Sultan Shahi, Hyderabad-A.P.

Sir, Sub:- W.P.No.23372 of 2013 - reg.

With reference to order dt. 04th October, 2013 in WPMP NO.28692/2013 in WP No.23372/2013 of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P., your case has been examined and you are not found fit for compassionate appointment as per rules. Further, as already been informed vide this Mint letter No.1- 48/Admn/2010/ Compassionate/4360, dt. 22/23.02.2010, your case was considered twice earlier and not found fit. In fact, requests for compassionate appointment can be considered for upto 3 years and thereafter after, it shall be treated as closed and not considered again as per rules.

This is for your information.

Yours faithfully, Sd/-

(S.B. BEHERA) Deputy General Manager

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner brings on record

during the course of hearing the proceedings dt. 09.09.2020

vide F.No.148A/PER/2020-21/1016 of the Joint General

Manager (HR) and Head Office India Government Mint,

Cherlapally, Hyderabad and bare perusal of the same WP_23372_2013 9 SN,J

indicates that around seven cases whose application's had

been pending consideration for many years i.e. for

considerable period, as having been considered and provided

with compassionate appointment during the period 2020-2021

and 2021-2022 under SPMCIL Compassionate Appointment

Scheme 2012, the same however, has not been denied by the

Respondents herein.

11. Paras 5, 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit filed by

Respondents No.1 to 3 read as under :

Para 5 :

It is further submitted that on the basis of her application for compassionate appointment, the candidature of Smt K.Swaroopa was considered by a committee constituted to investigate and to determine the eligibility for compassionate appointment at the office of 2nd Respondent. The Committee after consideration, recommended the candidature of 2nd Petitioner and the same was forwarded by the 2nd Respondent to the 1st Respondent Ministry vide Letter No.I- 2/99-2000/ADO/4878, dt. 13.03.2001 seeking permission for appointing her on compassionate appointment. However, it is to submit that her appointment could not be finalized as approval for the said appointment was ot received from the Ministry of Finance.

Para 6 :

Furthermore, it is submitted that candidature of Petitioner No.2 was once again considered by the office of 2nd WP_23372_2013 10 SN,J

Respondent in the year 2003 along with other candidates. A Memo hearing No.I-240/Pers./Maz/03/2550-0, dt. 11.09.2003 was issued to her to report on 22.09.2003 for Physical Ability and Oral Test. It was clearly brought out in the said memo that the decision of the IG Mint in all matters clearly brought out in the said memo that the decision of the IG Mint in all matters relating to eligibility, acceptance or mode of selection, conduct of interview will be final and binding on the candidates. Subsequently, on appearance for the said tests, the Screening Committee which considered candidates for the said appointments did not find the candidature of 2nd Petitioner suitable for compassionate appointment.

Para 7 :

It is submitted that in the meantime Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), Government of India issued instructions vide office memorandum No.14014/19/2002- Estt.(D), dt. 05.05.2003 fixing time frame for consideration of candidature for compassionate appointments. According to the said O.M., maximum time a person's name can be kept under consideration for offering compassionate appointment will be three years. After three years, if compassionate appointment is not possible to be offered to the applicant, his case will be finally closed, and will not be considered again. It is further submitted that since, the case of the Petitioner No.2 has already been considered earlier for appointment on compassionate grounds and the fact that she failed to qualify for appointment on compassionate grounds, her case cannot be considered any further.

                                                                  WP_23372_2013
                                 11                                       SN,J

12. Paras 15 and 16 of the counter affidavit filed by the

Respondents No.1 to 3 read as follows :

Para 15 :

It is further submitted that in pursuance of the decision of the Union Cabinet on 2nd September, 2005, the Government of India had decided to corporatize the existing functions of the 2nd Respondent which was earlier functioning under the Department of Economic Affairs. Accordingly, the 2nd Respondent was transferred to Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Limited (SPMCIL) which is a wholly owned company of the Government of India under the Administrative Control of Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance on 10.02.2006. As on date, the 2nd Respondent office is guided by the policies and instructions issued by SPMCIL, New Delhi. A scheme called SPMCIL Compassionate Appointment Scheme - 2012 was introduced by the company which is only applicable as on the date for 2nd Respondent's Office. As per Rule 4 of this scheme, the scheme shall apply only to all categories of employees of SPMCIL, who are in regular employment of the company till the date of death. Therefore, even with respect to this policy, the candidature of the Petitioner No.2 cannot be considered as the father of the 1st Petitioner expired during the regime when the 2nd Respondent office was directly functioning under Government of India.

Para 16 :

It is submitted that with reference to Para No.8 that, it is not disputed that DoPT vide its O.M.No.14014/3/2011-Estt.(D), dt. 26.07.2012 withdrew 03 year time limit prescribed vide WP_23372_2013 12 SN,J

its earlier O.M.No.14014/19/2002-Estt.(D), dt. 05.05.2003, however, the case of the Petitioner No.2 pertaining to the year 1988 has already been considered and the candidature has not been accepted by the Screening Committee. Therefore, the candidature of Petitioner No.1 cannot be considered afresh in the guise of relinquishment of rights of Petitioner No.2. Further, it is to submit that amendment of the rules has a prospective effect and not a retrospective effect. Compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of a reasonable period and it is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future.

13. CONCLUSION :

14. A bare perusal of the SPMCIL Compassionate

Appointment Scheme 2012 indicates that the objective

of the scheme is to grant appointment on

compassionate grounds to a dependent family member

of a company employee dying in harness, leaving his

family in penury and without any means of livelihood

and to relieve the family of the employee concerned

from financial destitution. The core aim of the object of

providing compassionate appointment in general is to

relieve the family from financial sufferings being faced

for the sudden demise of the bread winner of the

family. The sufferings being faced by the dependents of WP_23372_2013 13 SN,J

the deceased employee for sudden demise of the bread

winner could be solved for some extent by providing

compassionate appointment to one of the dependents

of the deceased employee to look after the family. In

the present case a bare perusal of both proceedings

impugned dt.22/23.02.2010 and 30.10.2014 clearly

indicate that the same had been passed mechanically

by the 3rd and 2nd Respondent respectively without any

application of mind in a routine manner, without giving

any credence to the very objective of the SPMCIL

Compassionate Appointment Scheme 2012.

15. If at para 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the

Respondents No.1 to 3 extracted above, it is contended

that the committee after consideration recommended

the candidature of the 2nd Petitioner and the same was

forwarded by the 2nd Respondent to the 1st Respondent

Ministry vide Letter No.I-2/99-2000/ADO/4878, dt.

12.03.2001 seeking permission for appointment of the

2nd Petitioner on compassionate appointment, her

appointment could not be finalized as approval for the

said appointment was not received from the Ministry of WP_23372_2013 14 SN,J

Finance. The counter affidavit is however, silent as to

why the 2nd Petitioner's appointment though

recommended by the competent authority way back in

2001 could not be approved by the Ministry of Finance.

16. Para 6 of the counter affidavit extracted above

curiously further states that the 2nd Petitioner's case

was again considered by the office of the 2nd

Respondent in the year 2003, but however, that the

then Screening Committee did not find 2nd Petitioner

suitable for compassionate appointment.

17. Para 7 of the counter affidavit extracted above

says that after 3 years if compassionate appointment is

not possible to be offered to the applicant his or her

case will be finally closed and will not be considered

again. Para 15 of the counter affidavit extracted above

indicates that the candidature of the 2nd Petitioner

cannot be considered as father of the 1st Petitioner and

the husband of the 2nd Petitioner expired during the

regime when the 2nd Respondent office was directly

functioning under Government of India.

                                                                      WP_23372_2013
                                     15                                       SN,J

18. This Court opines that there is no justification in

rejecting Petitioner's case for compassionate

appointment on all the above referred grounds and the

same are unreasonable and erroneous. As per para 16

of the counter affidavit extracted above it is contended

by the Respondents that the case of the 2nd Petitioner

cannot be considered since the 2nd Petitioner's

candidature has not been accepted by the screening

committee, this Court opines that the Petitioners are

only victimized and denied of their legitimate rights for

compassionate appointment on very flimsy, illegal,

unreasonable, malafide grounds.

19. This Court opines that since it is clearly borne on

record that DoPT vide its O.M.No.14014/3/2011-

Estt(D) dt. 26.07.2012 withdrew 03 year time limit

prescribed vide its earlier O.M.No.14014/19/2002-

Estt(D) dt. 05.05.2003 and the proceedings

No.19(O)/2012/D(Lab), dt. 08.08.2012 of the 1st

Respondent clearly indicates that the instruction

contained in OM dt. 05.05.2003 has been withdrawn.

                                                    WP_23372_2013
                           16                               SN,J

Therefore the impugned proceedings No.I-48A/Admn/

2010-Compassionate/4360, dt 22/23.02.2010 of the

3rd Respondent herein cannot be sustained.

20. This Court opines that the proceedings impugned

No.I-48A/Admn/2010/1714, dt. 30.10.2014 of the 2nd

Respondent herein also cannot be sustained since the

same is passed in a routine mechanical manner, hastily

without any application of mind holding that the

Petitioner was not fit for compassionate appointment

as per rules and further on the ground that the request

for compassionate appointment can be considered for

up to three years. This is totally contradictory to the

contents of O.M.No.14014/3/2011-Estt(D), dated

26.07.2012.

21. The Respondent No.1 to 3 herein contends at para

9 of the counter affidavit that the request of the

Petitioners is belated. Respondents No.1 to 3 herein

cannot malafidely, illegally, unilaterally, irrationally,

mechanically, erroneously without application of mind

reject the request of the Petitioner for compassionate WP_23372_2013 17 SN,J

appointment on the ground that it is belated request

since the representations of the Petitioners as borne on

record and even acknowledged by the Respondent

authority are dt. 02.01.2006, 15.02.2006 and the

deceased employee expired on 17.05.1998 as per the

Family Members Death Certificate dt. 17.05.1998. The

Division Bench of A.P. High Court vide its Judgement dt.

01.10.2021 in W.A.No.206/2021 in Andhra Bank Now

Union Bank of India & Others v. B Rajasekhar observed

in a case of rejection of compassionate appointment on

the ground of delay at para 11 as under :

"So far as the contention that nearly 22 years have gone by from the date of death of the father of the respondent/writ petitioner and, therefore, the case of the respondent/writ petitioner for compassionate appointment needs no consideration at this length of time is concerned, we are unable to accept the said contention. At the earliest point of time, the mother of the respondent/writ petitioner had approached the authorities of the bank for compassionate appointment of the respondent/writ petitioner, which was rejected on most untenable grounds prompting the respondent/writ petitioner to assail such rejection of compassionate appointment to him. Even in the second round of consideration, the bank had rejected his case WP_23372_2013 18 SN,J

on unjustifiable ground, as held by the learned single judge and affirmed by us. The respondent/writ petitioner cannot be denied his right to compassionate appointment accrued under the Scheme, for the delay that had occasioned over which he had no control. It is not in dispute that on the date of consideration, he was in requirement of compassionate appointment. In these circumstances, we see no good ground to take a view that only because of lapse of considerable time, he should be denied compassionate appointment".

22. The said judgement of the Division Bench A.P.

High Court dt. 01.10.2021 passed in W.A.No.206/2021

was confirmed by the Apex Court in its judgement dt.

14.02.2022 in SLP (C) No(s).19846/2021 in Andhra

Bank Now Union Bank of India & Others v. B

Rajasekhar.

23. The Apex Court in its recent judgement decided on

20th May, 2022 in Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa

& Others2, at para 17 and 18 of its judgement observed

as follows :

Para 17 :

"We are constrained to direct as above as we have found that in several cases, applications for

2022 SCC Online SC 684 WP_23372_2013 19 SN,J

appointment on compassionate grounds are not attended in time and are kept pending for years together. As a result, the applicants in several cases have to approach the concerned High Courts seeking a writ of Mandamus for the consideration of their applications. Even after such a direction is issued, frivolous or vexatious reasons are given for rejecting the applications. Once again, the applicants have to challenge the order or rejection before the High Court which leads to pendency of litigation and passage of time, leaving the family of the employee who died in harness in the lurch and in financial difficulty. Further, for reasons best known to the authorities and on irrelevant considerations, applications made for compassionate appointment are rejected. After several years or are not considered at all as in the instant case.

Para 18 :

If the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds as envisaged under the relevant policies or the rules have to be achieved then it is just and necessary that such applications are considered well in time and not in a trady way. We have come across cases where for nearly two decades the controversy regarding the application made for compassionate appointment is not resolved. This consequently leads to the frustration of the very policy of granting compassionate appointment on the death of the employee while in service. We have, therefore, directed that such applications must be considered at WP_23372_2013 20 SN,J

an earliest point of time. The consideration must be fair, reasonable and based on relevant consideration. The application cannot be rejected on the basis of frivolous and for reasons extraneous to the facts of the case. Then and then only the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds can be achieved.

24. The further plea of the Respondents No.1 to 3 that

the employee expired in the year 1998 and the Writ

Petition is filed in the year 2013 and the family had

been able to manage for 15 years and the same can be

considered as adequate proof that the family has some

dependable means of subsistence cannot be accepted

at all.

25. This Court opines that the said grounds are all

illogical, unreasonable, illegal and invented only to

deny the legitimate rights of the Petitioners for

compassionate appointment.

26. For all the circumstances and reasons explained

above this Court opines that the judgments relied upon

by the counsel for the respondents have no application

to the facts of the present case and taking into WP_23372_2013 21 SN,J

consideration the observations of the Division Bench of

A.P. High Court in W.A.No.206/2021, dt. 01.10.2021 in

Andhra Bank Now Union Bank of India & others v.

B.Rajasekhar and subsequently confirmed by the Apex

Court vide its order dated 14.02.2022 and the

observations of the Apex Court dated 20.05.2022 in

Judgement reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 684 in

Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa & Others

referred to and extracted above the writ petition is

allowed and the proceedings No.1-

48A/Admn/2010.Compassionate/1360, dated

22/23.02.2010 issued by 3rd Respondent and the

proceedings No.1-48A/Admn/2010/1714, dated

30.10.2014 issued by the 2nd Respondent are set aside

as contrary to the proceedings No.19(O)/2012/D(Lab),

dt.08.08.2012 of the 1st Respondent and the

Respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the

1st Petitioner for appointment on compassionate

grounds in any suitable post within 4 weeks from today

duly taking into consideration the observations of the

Apex Court extracted above and also the fact that WP_23372_2013 22 SN,J

under similar circumstances 7 cases had been

considered by the Respondents herein and

compassionate appointments provided under SPMCIL

Compassionate Appointment Scheme 2012 vide

F.No.148A/Per/2020-21/1016, dt. 09.09.2020 without

holding the said applications filed by the said 7

applicants as belated requests for compassionate

appointment. However, there shall be no order as to

costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

dismissed.

_________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J Date: 26.09.2022 Note: L.R. copy to be marked b/o kvrm