Kukkunurivamshi vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2521 Tel

                                  1
                                                                    JS,J
                                                          wp_35944_2021



     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

              WRIT PETITION No.35944 of 2021
ORDER:

The petitioner filed this Writ Petition seeking to declare the

action of respondents in not providing compassionate

appointment to him and not paying the terminal benefits and

family pension consequent on the death of his father on

30.05.2008 while in service on deployment in connection with the

Bye-Elections to the Karimnagar Parliament Constituency, as

illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Sri D.Linga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Government Pleader for Services -II appearing

for respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner is that his father was working as

Village Revenue Assistant. He was posted on Election duty on

30.05.2008 in connection with Bye-Elections to the Karimnagar

Parliament Constituency. While on duty, when he along with

other Election Officers were returning after deploying the "polling

boxes" at Karminagar, their vehicle met with an accident near

Gangadhara village and the petitioner's father died on the spot.

JS,J wp_35944_2021

The case of the petitioner is that he was the only legal heir of his

deceased father, as his mother pre-deceased his father. The

petitioner was aged about 9 years as on the date of death of his

father i.e.,30.05.2008. On attaining majority, he made a

representation dated 02.08.2021, requesting the respondents to

appoint him on compassionate grounds as his father died while

on duty. The respondents have not taken any steps for

appointing him on compassionate grounds on the ground that

the petitioner has made such claim belatedly. The petitioner's

case is that due to the death of his father, he became an orphan

as his mother pre-deceased his father and he has been taken

care of by his grand parents. Therefore, he approached the

respondents with a little bit delay after attaining majority.

Therefore, he seeks directions for his compassionate

appointment, as the cases of many such persons were considered

though there is some delay. In this connection, a reference was

made to the order dated 12.02.2021 passed by the High Court of

Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.22290 of 2012, which was also

confirmed by the Division Bench of said Court by order dated

25.08.2021 in Writ Appeal No.518 of 2021.

JS,J wp_35944_2021

4. Respondent No.5 has filed counter affidavit admitting about

the death of petitioner's father on 30.05.2008 while on duty. The

cause stated in the counter affidavit for not considering the claim

of petitioner for compassionate appointment is that the petitioner

case does not come under Rule-8(3) of TS Village Servant Service

Rules, 2005. It is further stated in the counter that one

Mr.Kukkunuri Ganga Narsaiah S/o. Deva Rajam, who is the son

of paternal uncle of petitioner's father was appointed as Village

Servant in place of the petitioner's father as the said person came

forward for taking care of petitioner and his old aged grand

parents. It is also stated that the said Ganga Narsaiah became

blind, was unable to discharge official duties and also absconded

from duty, therefore, a show cause notice was issued to him and

thereafter he was removed from Service the appeal preferred by

him was also dismissed. It is further stated in the counter

affidavit that the representation made by the petitioner through

Mr.T.Jeevan Reddy, MLC was forwarded to respondent No.3 by

respondent No.4, but the same was not considered as the

application for compassionate appointment was not made by the

petitioner within a period of one year from the date of death of his

father. The respondents, in support of their case, relied on the

JS,J wp_35944_2021

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhaneswar Medhi Vs.

Union of India 1.

5. The admitted case of the parties is that the petitioner's

father, while working as Village Revenue Assistant, was deputed

on Election duty and during the course of such duty, the vehicle

in which he was travelling along with other staff, met with an

accident causing his instantaneous death on 30.05.2008. The

case of the petitioner is that as on the date of death of his father,

he was aged 9 years and that his mother pre-deceased his father

and thus, he became an orphan. Therefore, he could not

approach the respondents for compassionate appointment

immediately after his father's death. The only ground taken by

the respondents for not considering the claim of petitioner for

compassionate appointment is that he has not made the

application within one year from the date of death of his father as

prescribed under the rules for compassionate appointment. In

the Judgment in Dhaneshwar Medhi's case (3 supra) relied on

by the respondents, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not grant the

relief of compassionate appointment to the petitioner therein in

view of delay in making application for such appointment.

2021 SCC online Megh 15

JS,J wp_35944_2021

Though there is no dispute with regard to the law laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment, in view of the

facts and circumstances of the present case, the said judgment

cannot be applied to the case on hand. In the present case, the

petitioner is the only surviving member of the family being looked

after by his grand parents. Further, he was aged only 9 years at

the time of his father's death. Therefore, he waited for attaining

majority and could approach the respondents only thereafter.

Though there is some delay on the part of the petitioner in

making his claim, as he attained majority in the year 2017 as

even according to him, he was aged 9 years in 2008, such delay

cannot become a hurdle in his claim for compassionate

appointment. In W.P.No.22290 of 2012, relied on by the learned

counsel for the petitioner, a learned Single Judge of the High

Court of Andhra Pradesh, while considering the similar issue,

has observed that the dependants of the deceased employee may

not be aware about the compassionate appointment scheme and

other conditions like time stipulated for making such application

etc. Since the family members of the bereaved family will be in

grief, it will take some time for them to lay their claim for

compassionate appointment. It is also observed that the

JS,J wp_35944_2021

authorities have to consider the situation of such family in a

sympathetic way and with human touch instead of following the

technicalities. In the said judgment, a reference was also made to

the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balbir Kaur vs.

Steel Authority of India Limited 2, wherein, it is held that while

considering the case for compassionate appointment, the

authorities are supposed to adopt a humane outlook. With such

observations, the learned single Judge has allowed the writ

petition directing the respondents therein to consider the claim of

petitioner for compassionate appointment. The said order of the

single Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench vide orders

dated 25.08.2021 in W.A.No.518 of 2021.

6. The aforesaid judgment relied on by the learned counsel for

the petitioner is squarely applicable to the case on hand, as in

the present case also, the petitioner's family condition is very

pathetic as both the parents were expired and he is being looked

after by his old-aged grand parents. Though the respondents

have stated that one Kukkunuri Ganga Narsaiah i.e, the son of

the paternal uncle of petitioner's father was given compassionate

appointment, such appointment was made without any basis and

(2000) 6 SSC 493

JS,J wp_35944_2021

further, the said person was later removed from service. Hence,

basing on the same, the respondents cannot deny Compassionate

appointment to the petitioner. In the factual background of this

case, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the

petitioner can be considered for compassionate appointment

without reference to the objection taken by the respondents that

there is some delay on the part of the petitioner in making the

claim for compassionate appointment.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is allowed

directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner

for compassionate appointment in any suitable post within a

period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order. The respondents are further directed to pay the terminal

benefits including family pension payable to the petitioner as per

rules consequent upon the death of his father late Kukkunuri

Shankaraiah within the aforesaid time frame. No costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Dated: 20.09.2023 dgr