Telangana High Court
Chintala Anusha And Another vs The State Of Telangana And 2 Others on 31 January, 2025
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.19215 of 2022
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed assailing the action of the 2nd
respondent in issuing the proceeding vide
RC.No.A1/1540/2021, dt.24.11.2021, whereby the request of
the petitioners for providing employment to the 1st petitioner in
terms of G.O.Ms.No.504 G.A.(SC.A) Department, dt.11.08.2008
and G.O.Ms.No.50 G.A.(Sc-A) Dept., dt.21.02.2014, has been
rejected on the ground that the 2nd petitioner had opted to
receive ex-gratia amount, as being highly arbitrary, illegal and
violative of Articles 14, 26 & 21 of the Constitution of India and
contrary to the ratio laid down by this Court in Writ Appeal
No.69 of 2012, dt.23.02.2012.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
Government Pleader for GAD appearing for respondents and
perused the record.
3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the 1st
petitioner is daughter and the 2nd petitioner is wife of late
Ch.Teneswar; that their father/husband was killed by the
extremists on 29.06.1994; that the aforesaid incident was noted
by registering a Crime vide FIR.No.21 of 1994 in Maddur Police
Station in the erstwhile Warangal District(Presently Siddipet
District); that on their father/husband being killed by the
extremists, the respondents except offering monetary benefit in
the form of ex-gratia in a sum of Rs.25,000/-, did not provide
any other benefit.
4. It is the further case of the petitioners that the State
Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.70, dt.26.02.1996
enhancing the ex-gratia relief to the victims of extremists'
violence and relief towards damages to properties; that
thereafter the State Government had issued another
government order vide G.O.Ms.No.469, dt.08.11.1996, providing
for employment to the son or daughter or spouse of any person
killed in extremist violence or in police firing; that by the
aforesaid G.O., issued employment was provided at the level of
Junior Assistant/Typist depending on the qualification of the
applicants by amending the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of
Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff
Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act')
suitably; that under the aforesaid G.O., the District Collectors
were also authorized to grant relaxation of age on case-to-case
basis; and that the said G.O. was given effect from 26.02.1996
i.e., the date on which the G.O.Ms.No.70 enhancing ex-gratia
relief was issued.
5. Petitioners further contend that on issuance of
G.O.Ms.No.469 as the benefit of employment was denied to the
son, daughter of the deceased, killed in extremist violence prior
to 26.02.1996, on the ground that on the date of death of the
victim, the applicant was a minor, various writ petitions came to
be filed before this Court; and that this Court had frowned upon
the approach of the respondents-authorities in rejecting the
claims on the ground of the applicants being minor on the date
of the death of the victim in the extremist violence, since, the
entitlement to seek employment by the dependents of victims
had arisen only upon issuance of G.O.No.469.
6. It is the further case of the petitioners that the
Government thereafter issued G.O.Ms.No.504, dt.11.08.2008
granting extension of benefit of compassionate appointment to
the dependent family members of innocent civilians killed by
extremists prior to 26.02.1996, and had granted three (03)
months time from the date of issuance of said G.O. for the
eligible applicants to submit their applications to the District
Collectors concerned .
7. Petitioners also contend that thereafter the Government
had provided for monetary relief in the form of payment of
additional ex-gratia of Rs.5 lakhs in lieu of employment, if there
is no eligible family member as on the date of the death of the
victim by issuing G.O.Ms.No.50, dt.21.02.2014; and that the
said payment of additional ex-gratia was extended to all
previous cases where no employment was provided to the
families of civilians killed in extremist violence.
8. Petitioners further contend that though the 2nd petitioner
had submitted an application in terms of G.O.Ms.No.504, for
providing employment on 04.11.2008, the said application was
rejected by the respondents.
9. It is also the case of the petitioners that on the
Government issuing G.O.Ms.No.50, dt.21.02.2014, the
respondents did not make the payment of additional ex-gratia
amount to the 2nd petitioner being the wife of the victim of
extremist violence immediately, even though they were fully
aware that employment was not provided either in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.469 or G.O.Ms.No.504; that only after the 2nd
petitioner submitting an application seeking employment to her
daughter i.e., the 1st petitioner, the respondents offered to pay
the additional ex-gratia amount of Rs.5 lakhs in the year 2022;
and since, by that time the 1st petitioner had completed her B-
Tech course in May, 2016, and became eligible to seek
employment, the 2nd petitioner had rejected the aforesaid ex-
gratia payment offered by the respondents keeping in view the
interest of the 1st petitioner to secure employment.
10. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioners that on
the 1st petitioner attaining the age of majority, the respondents-
authorities instead of providing the employment in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.469, as further extended by G.O.Ms.No.504, have
rejected the application made by the 1st petitioner on
03.12.2020 by issuing the impugned proceeding, dt.24.11.2021,
contrary to the spirit of G.O.Ms.No.469 as amended by
G.O.Ms.No.504 and also contrary to the dicta laid down in
various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court.
11. In support of the aforesaid contentions reliance has
placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP.(C)
Nos.9520 and 9521/2013, and the decision of a Division Bench
of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.69 and 415 of 2012, and of a
co-ordinate bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.23363 of
2014.
12. Counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.3 is filed.
13. On the basis of the counter affidavit it is contended that
the 1st petitioner was aged about four (04) months on the date
when her father was killed in extremist violence and thus, on
the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.469, the 1st petitioner was
only aged about 2½ years; and that though the 2nd petitioner
was eligible to seek employment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.469, she
did not submit any application at the relevant point of time, and
as such petitioners cannot contend that the respondents having
failed to provide employment to petitioners being dependent
daughter/spouse.
14. It is also contended that though the 2nd petitioner claims
to have submitted an application seeking employment on
04.11.2008 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.504, and the said application
being rejected by the respondents-authorities, the 2nd petitioner
has neither placed the said rejection order nor challenged the
same before this Court.
15. It is also contended on behalf of the respondents that
even on the date of issuance of G.O.No.504, the 1st petitioner
was only aged about 14 years and thus, being a minor could not
have been provided with employment, as the power to relax the
age and educational qualifications conferred on the District
Collectors was only in relation to the upper age and not for
providing employment to minors.
16. It is also contended on behalf of the respondents that the
2nd petitioner had consented for receiving additional ex-gratia
amount of Rs.5 lakhs by submitting an application, initially on
09.06.2015 and thereafter again on 07.06.2019, in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.50; that while the respondents-authorities were in
the process of obtaining necessary approval for payment of
additional ex-gratia of Rs.5 lakhs to the 2nd petitioner pursuant
to the consent letters given by her, the 1st petitioner herein had
submitted an application, dt.03.12.2020, requesting to provide
employment under G.O.Ms.No.504 claiming that her mother
was misguided to opt for additional ex-gratia amount of Rs.5
lakhs; and that the said application was rejected as having been
submitted beyond the period of three (03) months specified in
G.O.Ms.No.504, dt.11.08.2008.
17. On behalf of the respondents it is further contended that
the petitioners herein had approached this Court earlier by
filing a writ petition vide W.P.No.14120 of 2021, claiming that
the respondents are not providing employment to one of the
family members of the deceased victim under the scheme of
compassionate appointment as per G.O.Ms.No.504 by
considering the representations submitted; that this Court had
disposed of the said writ petition on 25.06.2021 directing the
respondents to consider the representations submitted by the
petitioners within a period of six (06) weeks; and that the
petitioners thereafter also filed a contempt case vide
C.C.No.1295 of 2021 wherein the respondents had claimed of
having passed the impugned order.
18. On behalf of the respondents it is further contended that
since, on the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.504, whereby the
benefit conferred under G.O.Ms.No.469 was extended to all the
eligible applicants of the deceased-victims killed prior to
26.02.1996, requiring them to submit applications within a
period of three months, no application is submitted by the 2nd
petitioner for provision of employment, and insofar as the 1st
petitioner is concerned, the same cannot be considered, as she
was minor at the relevant point of time.
19. It is further contended on behalf of the respondents that
on withdrawal of the above mentioned G.Os by the Government
vide G.O.Rt.No.2493, dt.07.09.2015, the 2nd petitioner had
consented to receive additional ex-gratia amount of Rs.5 lakhs;
and that she was issued with a cheque dt.30.11.2021, but was
refused to be received by her and sought for provision of
employment to the 1st petitioner.
20. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that
though the 2nd petitioner was eligible for employment upon
issuance of G.O.Ms.No.469, dt.08.11.1996 or even thereafter as
per G.O.Ms.No.504, dt.11.08.2008, at no point of time the 2nd
respondent sought for employment by submitting application.
21. It is also contended by the respondents that insofar as the
claim of the 2nd petitioner of making an application on
04.11.2008, no material is placed before this Court in support
of the aforesaid submission. However, the petitioners are now
claiming of the documents having been lost in floods, which
plea they did not take, when they had filed the writ petition vide
W.P.No.14120 of 2021, and as such the said claim cannot now
be accepted.
22. Learned Government Pleader further submits that since,
the respondents are very much interested in extending the
benefit in terms of various GOs issued, the respondents are
always ready and willing to pay the ex-gratia amount offered
earlier by issuing a fresh cheque.
23. In reply, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that
though Clause 6 of G.O.Ms.No.504 requires the respondents to
communicate the aforesaid GO to the families of the extremist
violence victims and obtain applications in time, the
respondents-authorities did not do so by informing the
petitioners of the benefit conferred under the aforesaid GO, and
even though consent for receiving additional ex-gratia amount
was given on 09.06.2015, the additional ex-gratia amount was
not paid immediately and was offered only in the year 2022,
after the petitioners approaching this Court by filing
W.P.No.14120 of 2021, and thus, the respondents-authorities
have not taken any action to protect the interests of the victims
of the civilians who were killed in extremist violence.
24. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
25. At the outset, it is to be noted that the right to seek by the
dependent son, daughter or spouse of a civilian killed by
extremists for provision of employment had arisen, firstly, on
the State Government issuing G.O.Ms.No.469, dt.08.11.1996.
26. Though by the aforesaid G.O. issued, the benefit of
providing employment was stated to have come into force w.e.f.
26.02.1996, by amending the Act, and also conferring power on
the Collectors to grant relaxation of age on case-to-case basis,
the 1st petitioner, who was only aged about 2 ½ years in the
year 1996, could not have been considered for being provided
with employment.
27. Though the 2nd petitioner was a major and was eligible to
be provided with employment, no material is placed before this
Court to show that the 2nd petitioner having made an
application seeking employment and the same not being
considered by the respondents-authorities, and being paid only
ex-gratia amount of Rs.25,000/-.
28. Though, the provision was made to provide employment
to the victims of deceased-civilians killed in extremist violence in
terms of G.O.Ms.No.469, the stand taken by the respondents in
rejecting to provide employment to the victims of the deceased
on the ground, that on the date of incident, the applicant being
a minor, was held by this Court to be a perverse view of the
matter, since, the eligibility to seek employment by the victim of
the deceased arose only on the respondent-State issuing the
G.O., by which date the applicant must have attained the age of
majority.
29. The State Government thereafter, by issuing
G.O.Ms.No.504, dt.11.08.2008, had once again extended the
benefit of provision of compassionate appointment as provided
under G.O.No.469, dt.08.11.1996, even though the victims had
deceased prior to 26.02.1996, and directed all the eligible
applicants to submit their applications within a period of three
(03) months from the date of issuance of the aforesaid G.O.
30. Even by the date of issuance of the aforesaid G.O.No.504,
the 1st petitioner was minor and the power to grant relaxation
conferred on the Collector was only in case of 'Upper Age' and
was not in respect of 'Under Age', which if granted would also be
contrary to law, as no minor can be employed.
31. Though the 2nd petitioner claims to have submitted
application after the issuance of the aforementioned G.O. on
04.11.2008, and the said application not being considered or
rejected, no material to the above effect is placed for
consideration by this Court.
32. Further, it is also to be noted that if the respondents-
authorities had rejected the claim of the 2nd petitioner for
provision of employment by not granting relaxation of age or
educational qualifications, the 2nd petitioner ought to have
challenged the said action. However, for the reasons best
known, no such action is stated to have been initiated.
33. Though the petitioners claim of having lost the relevant
documents in floods, in the absence of any material to
substantiate the aforesaid submission being placed before this
Court, this Court is loath to appreciate the said submission.
34. Though the State had extended the benefit of provision of
compassionate appointment by issuing G.O.Ms.No.504,
dt.11.08.2008, in respect of all old incidents occurred prior to
26.02.1996 as mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.469, dt.08.11.1996,
the said G.O., required the applicants to submit applications
within a period of three (03) months from the date of its
issuance i.e., from 11.08.2008.
35. Admittedly, the 1st petitioner, who is now seeking
employment under the aforesaid G.O., was a minor even on the
said date, and as such, was not eligible to seek employment
even then, for her now to claim to be provided with employment
thereunder.
36. It is to be noted that on the date when the 1st petitioner
made application, dt.03.12.2020 for being provided with
employment, there is no GO in operation, under which the
respondents were under obligation to provide employment, as
all the G.Os. were withdrawn vide G.O.Rt.No.2473,
dt.07.09.2015, and even the window period of three (03) months
granted under G.O.Ms.No.504, dt.11.08.2008, by which
applications were directed to be submitted for compassionate
appointment, had also lapsed.
37. Further, it is also to be noted that the respondent-State
taking note of the fact that some of the victims of deceased in
extremist violence could not seek employment for various
reasons like spouse, brothers, etc., are aged or only having
surviving parents, had issued G.O.Ms.No.50, dt.21.02.2014
directing payment of additional ex-gratia of Rs.5 lakhs in lieu of
employment, if there is no eligible family member for
employment as on the date of death of the victim.
38. Upon the issuance of the aforesaid G.O., the 2nd
petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased-victim, was entitled to
be paid the additional ex-gratia of Rs.5 lakhs and as on the date
of the death of the victim, the 1st petitioner was a minor and the
2nd petitioner did not seek for providing employment in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.469 as amended by G.O.No.504.
39. The provision of employment to the son, daughter or
spouse of the deceased-victim is a policy decision of the State.
The State initially decided to provide employment to son,
daughter and spouse, who were major on the said date w.e.f.,
26.02.1996, and issued G.O.Ms.No.469. However, when the
respondents refused to provide employment to the deceased-
victim family on the ground of the aforesaid GO being applicable
only in relation to those who were killed in extremist violence
after 26.02.1996, and in other cases occurring prior to
26.02.1996, on the ground of the applicant being a minor on
the date of incident, this Court in the decisions relied upon by
the petitioner held that it is only upon issuance of
G.O.Ms.No.469, a right has been conferred to seek employment
and thus, the age of the applicant is to be considered as of the
date of issuance of G.O., and not on the date of incident,
including power to grant relaxation in case of upper age.
40. The said benefit was made available by the State
Government once again for all those deceased victims of
extremist violence taken place prior to 26.02.1996 by issuing
GO.Ms.No.504. However, in order to seek benefit, the
Government had granted three (03) months time to the
dependents to submit application. Thus, the issuance of
G.O.Ms.No.504, dt.11.08.2008 granting extension of benefit to
the cases prior to 26.02.1996, and the prescription of time limit
mentioned in the GO to seek benefit thereunder is a policy
decision of the State. It is settled position of law that Courts
cannot interfere with the policy decisions [Union of India and
Others vs. Hindustan Development Corporation and
Others 1].
41. As noted herein above, even on the date of issuance of
G.O.Ms.No.504 and the three months time granted thereunder
to submit application seeking compassionate appointment, the
1st petitioner was not eligible to seek employment being a minor.
In fact it is only in the year 2020, the 1st petitioner submitted
application, dt.03.12.2020 seeking employment under
(1993) 3 Supreme Court Cases 499
G.O.Ms.No.504, which was not in vogue by the said date as
having been withdrawn on September, 2015 itself.
42. Though the ratio laid down in the decisions cited by the
learned counsel for the petitioners binds this Court, it is to be
noted that any ratio decidendi is to be applied based on facts of
each case.
43. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhavnagar University v.
Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. 2 in Para 59 held that:
"A decision, as is well known, is an authority for
which it is decided and not what can logically be
deduced therefrom. It is also well settled that a little
difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot
of difference in the precedential value of a decision."
44. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki v. State of
Gujarat 3, in Para 56 held that:
"Each case depends on its own facts and a close
similarity between one case and another is not
enough because even a single significant detail may
alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one
should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said
by Cardozo) by matching the colour of one case
against the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on
(2003) 2 SCC 111
(2014) 4 SCC 626
which side of the line a case falls, the broad
resemblance to another case is not at all decisive."
45. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. v.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II 4 in Para 8 held that:
"Courts should not place reliance on decisions without
discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with
the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is
placed. Observations of courts are neither to be read
as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of a statute
and that too taken out of their context. These
observations must be read in the context in which
they appear to have been stated."
46. In the facts of the present case as detailed herein above,
since, by the date of 1st petitioner submitting application, the
relevant G.Os., having been withdrawn, the decisions relied
upon by the petitioners would not advance the case of the 1st
petitioner. Thus, the action of the respondents in issuing the
impugned proceeding cannot be held as illegal.
47. As noted hereinabove, though the 2nd petitioner was
eligible to seek employment in the year 1996 itself, under
G.O.Ms.No.469, and again in the year 2008 on issuance of
G.O.Ms.No.504, no material is placed before this Court to show
the 2nd petitioner having made any application seeking
employment and the same being not considered by the
(2004) 8 SCC 335
respondents. On the other hand, the 2nd petitioner in the year
2015 had consented to receive additional ex-gratia of Rs.5 lakhs
under G.O.Ms.No.50 in lieu of employment.
48. Further, it is to be noted that even though the 2nd
petitioner had consented to receive the additional ex-gratia
amount in the month of November, 2015, the respondents-
authorities, who had a duty and responsibility to take care of
the family members of the deceased-victim, have miserably
failed to extend the benefit, to which the family members of the
deceased-victims are entitled to immediately.
49. Though on behalf of the respondents it is contended that
they had offered payment of additional ex-gratia amount of Rs.5
lakhs by issuing a cheque, dt.30.11.2021, that by itself would
not absolve the respondents claim of having acted timely, as it
had taken seven years for them to offer the said payment, after
the 2nd petitioner consenting to receive the additional ex-gratia
amount as per G.O.Ms.No.50.
50. Thus, this Court is of the view that the respondents-
authorities had a duty to make payment of the additional ex-
gratia amount of Rs.5 lakhs to the 2nd petitioner immediately
after the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.50, dt.21.02.2014, knowing
very well that there is no eligible family member of the
deceased-victim to be provided with compassionate
appointment.
51. Further, though the 2nd petitioner had become eligible for
receiving additional ex-gratia amount in February, 2014, and
also having consented to receive the same in November, 2015,
as the said additional ex-gratia amount was offered to the
petitioners only on 30.11.2021, by which time, the 2nd
petitioner's daughter i.e., the 1st petitioner having attained the
age of majority and also having obtained graduation degree, had
created a hope in her to secure employment for her daughter
having suffered although this period on account of the death of
her husband at the hands of the extremists. If only the
respondents-authorities had acted in time by providing
necessary financial assistance in the form of payment of
additional ex-gratia, the present situation and the suffering the
2nd petitioner had to undergo in bringing up the 1st petitioner,
could have been avoided.
52. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that
i) the action of the respondents-authorities in issuing the
impugned proceeding, dt.24.11.2021, rejecting the claim of the
1st petitioner for provision of employment does not call for any
interference; and ii) the 2nd petitioner is entitled to be paid
additional ex-gratia as per G.O.Ms.No.50, dt.21.02.2014.
53. Since, the respondents have failed to make the payment
of additional ex-gratia to the 2nd petitioner immediately, this
Court is of the view that the respondents-authorities are to be
directed to pay the additional ex-gratia amount of Rs.5 lakhs in
terms of G.O.Ms.No.50, dt.21.02.2014, along with interest @ 8%
per annum from the date of issuance of the aforesaid G.O. till
the actual date of payment. The aforesaid payment along with
interest as directed shall be paid within a period of four (04)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
54. Subject to the above observation and direction, the Writ
Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
55. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending
shall stand closed.
_____________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
31st January, 2025.
gra
