(e) The record further discloses that the petitioner
has also given a statement stating that her husband's
brother Sri Ch.Veerabadram has making issues for
providing employment to the 6th respondent and ignoring
him, the 6th respondent should be provided employment in
the interest of the family. Sri Ch. Veerabadram, the brother
of the deceased employee, has also given an affidavit on
04.02.2000 stating that the disputes between himself and
the 6th respondent have been resolved and he has no
objection to provide employment to the 6th respondent
under deceased quota.
(f) On consideration of the said statements, the 6th
respondent was issued letter dated 29.06.2000 to appear for
interview for providing employment. Thereafter, the 6th
respondent was issued order dated 15.07.2000 along with
five others appointing as Attenders under compassionate
grounds.
(g) After a lapse of four years, the petitioner gave a
complaint dated 24.12.2004. On the totality of the
circumstances, it was found that there are no bonafides in
the complaint lodged by the petitioner. Hence, the
proceedings dated 22.04.2012 were issued to drop further
action against the 6th respondent.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the 6th respondent submitted fabricated documents
and forged the petitioner's signature to misrepresent himself
as a legal heir of the deceased to secure the appointment.
The petitioner made several representations and also issued
a legal notice dated 19.04.2005 to the respondents,
requesting removal of the 6th respondent and consideration
of her own claim for appointment on compassionate
grounds.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further
submits that the respondents conducted enquiry and found
that the 6th respondent obtained job by committing fraud
and he is not entitled for compassionate appointment for
the death of the deceased. The respondent authorities also
found that the 6th respondent is not the son of the deceased,
but he is the son of one Orsu Anjaiah. Though the
respondent authorities completed enquiry, till date, no
action has been taken against the 6th respondent.
Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition
by directing the respondents to consider the claim of the
petitioner for compassionate appointment and allow the writ
petition.
8. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent
Nos.1 to 5 submits that the relief sought in the writ petition
insofar as providing employment to the petitioner on
compassionate grounds is misconceived, as she herself gave
notarized affidavit on 25.02.1999, wherein she has
categorically stated that she has no interest to do job in
KTPS and agreed to provide employment to the 6th
respondent. Even, the petitioner's brother-in-law,
Veerabhadram, filed an affidavit on 04.02.2000 confirming
the settlement of family disputes and supporting the
appointment of the 6th respondent. Therefore, at this length
of time, removing the 6th respondent and providing
employment to the petitioner does not arise. There is no
irregularity and illegality in issuing the appointment order
to the 6th respondent under compassionate grounds.
Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to
be dismissed.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent
submits that the 6th respondent is the adopted son of the
deceased and the petitioner. The 6th respondent was
brought up by the petitioner and her husband and was
treated as their son. There are no bonafides in the
complaint lodged by the petitioner. Hence, the proceedings
dated 22.04.2012 were issued to drop further action against
the 6th Respondent.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent
further submits that the petitioner has given notarized
affidavit on 25.02.1999 and her daughters viz.,
Smt.Nagamani and Smt. Renuka have also given an
affidavit stating that they have No Objection for
appointment of the 6th respondent. During the vigilance
enquiry, the petitioner gave statement stating that the 6th
respondent is the son of her sister and she has taken care of
the 6th respondent and that the name of the 6th respondent
is also recorded in the registers of KTPS for the purpose of
availing the LTC.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent
further submits that on consideration of the relevant factors
and also keeping in view the fact that the 6th respondent has
put in more than 12 years of service, the official
respondents have decided to drop further action against the
6th respondent and accordingly, proceedings, dated
24.04.2012 were issued to that effect. The official
respondents have rightly appointed the 6th respondent on
compassionate grounds. Therefore, there are no merits in
the writ petition and is liable to be dismissed.
12. Heard Mr.Abdul Azam Khan, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Smt.K.Udaya Sri, learned
counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and
Sri K.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 6th
respondent. Perused the material available on record.
13. The present writ petition is with regard to
compassionate appointment. After the death of the
petitioner's husband, the petitioner made an application to
the respondents seeking compassionate appointment to her
or to her daughters. While pending the said application, the
petitioner received all the death benefits and repeatedly
requesting the authorities to consider her case for
compassionate appointment. The petitioner's husband died
in a road accident on 27.12.1998. After a lapse of several
years, the petitioner came to know that the respondent
authorities appointed her relative by name Venkaiah, who is
none other than the 6th respondent in the present writ
petition, under compassionate grounds, for the death of her
husband. Subsequently, on her enquiry, she came to know
that the 6th respondent fabricated documents to the effect
that he was brought by her husband and created the
records, as if he is the legal heir of her husband and forged
the petitioner's signature and fabricated the documents and
submitted to the respondent authorities to the effect that
she made a declaration that she has no objection for
appointment of the 6th respondent under compassionate
appointment rules.
14. The petitioner stated that though the 6th respondent is
not the legal heir of the deceased, by misleading the
respondent authorities, obtained compassionate
appointment for the death of her husband. Immediately, she
made a representation to the respondent authorities to
conduct an enquiry against the 6th respondent and remove
him from service. But, the respondent authorities did not
take any action against the 6th respondent. Finally, the
petitioner got issued a legal notice, dated 19.04.2005 to take
action against the 6th respondent. The respondent
authorities after receiving the petitioner's notice, intimated
the petitioner's counsel vide proceedings dated 18.06.2005
that the matter is under examination and appropriate
examination would be taken in the matter, based on the
results of the findings in due course.
15. The petitioner further stated that the respondent
authorities conducted an enquiry and found that the 6th
respondent obtained appointment by committing fraud and
he is not entitled for appointment under compassionate
grounds for the death of her husband. However, the
respondent authorities did not take any action against the
6th respondent for his removal from service.
16. The proposals have been received from CE/O&M/KTPS
alongwith an application from the 6th respondent seeking
employment and the Legal Heir Certificate obtained from the
Mandal Revenue Officer, Paloncha. As per the Legal Heir
Certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Paloncha,
there are four legal heirs including the 6th respondent. The
6th respondent while requesting the authorities for
compassionate appointment enclosed copies of Death
Certificate, educational certificates and also an affidavit
duly notarized submitted by the petitioner herein and her
two daughters authorizing the 6th respondent to be
appointed under compassionate grounds as he is the son of
the deceased.
17. After scrutinizing the proposals of the CE/O&M/KTPS,
the APGENCO vide its Memo No.GM(A)/DS(PS)/AS(P)/B1-
246/2000-1, dated 23.06.2000, issued orders permitting
the 6th respondent along with others to appear before the
Selection Committee constituted for the purpose of
appointment to the post of Attender at head quarters office.
18. The respondent authorities in their counter specifically
stated that the averments made by the petitioner in
paragraph No.2 of the writ affidavit are incorrect, as she
herself declared that the 6th respondent is her son and her
two daughters have also submitted affidavits to that effect.
The respondent authorities stated that no representation for
appointment under compassionate grounds has come up for
consideration till appointment of the 6th respondent. When
the petitioner herself has given consent to appoint the 6th
respondent, the question of the petitioner's waiting for
appointment does not arise.
19. The 6th respondent in his counter affidavit stated that
he is the sister's son of the petitioner and that when he was
about 3 or 4 years old, he was taken in adoption by the
petitioner and her husband, as they did not have any male
children. Later, he was brought up by his adopted parents
and they have provided him all the facilities including
education. After the death of his adopted father, the
Department has paid the death benefits to the petitioner
and she is also receiving the monthly family pension.
20. In the month of March, 2024, respondent Nos.1 to 5
filed additional affidavit stating that after appointment of
the 6th respondent as Attender vide order dated 15.07.2000,
on the objection raised by the petitioner, the respondents
have issued charge-sheet dated 29.09.2005 and after
conducting the enquiry, he was issued show-cause notice
dated 14.02.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the 6th
respondent filed W.P.No.3192 of 2006 before this Court and
this Court vide its order dated 23.03.2006 granted stay of
all further proceedings with regard to the said show-cause
notice. The said writ petition was allowed on 27.09.2011 by
setting aside the show-cause notice, dated 14.02.2006 and
kept it open to the respondent authorities to issue show-
cause notice and take further steps in accordance with law.
Pursuant thereto, the respondent authorities issued Memo,
dated 20.02.2005 to the 6th respondent alleging that he
obtained blank signed papers from the petitioner for the
purpose of securing appointment on compassionate
grounds. The 6th respondent submitted an explanation on
06.03.2012.
21. On consideration of the explanation, the respondent
authorities came to know that the petitioner herself has
given a notarized affidavit on 25.02.1999 stating that she
has no objection for appointment of the 6th respondent. The
name of the 6th respondent is also recorded in the registers
of KTPS for the purpose of availing LTC. After considering
the above said facts and in view of the fact that the 6th
respondent has completed 12 years of service without any
complaint, the respondent authorities decided to drop
further action against the 6th respondent and accordingly
proceedings dated 24.04.2012 were issued to that effect.
22. In the instant case, the petitioner has approached the
respondent authorities after a lapse of more than four years
after the appointment of the 6th respondent seeking his
removal. The petitioner herself gave a notarized affidavit on
25.02.1999 stating that she has no interest to do job in
KTPS and agreed to provide compassionate appointment to
the 6th respondent. Once the petitioner herself gave consent
for appointment of the 6th respondent, she is estopped from
questioning the same.
23. A perusal of the record discloses that before
appointment of the 6th respondent, there was a conversation
in between the family members of the petitioner and the
petitioner and her daughters expressed no objection for
appointment of the 6th respondent and later due to some
family disputes, the petitioner wants to remove the 6th
respondent from service and accordingly, she has
approached the respondent authorities.
24. With regard to compassionate appointment, learned
counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in MALAYA NANDA SETHY Vs. STATE
OF ORISSA AND OTHERS1, wherein the Apex Court held as
follows :-
"14. Thus, from the aforesaid, it can be seen that
there was no fault and/or delay and/or negligence on
the part of the appellant at all. He was fulfilling all the
conditions for appointment on compassionate grounds
under the 1990 Rules. For no reason, his application
was kept pending and/or no order was passed on one
ground or the other. Therefore, when there was no fault
and/or delay on the part of the appellant and all
throughout there was a delay on the part of the
department/authorities, the appellant should not be
made to suffer. Not appointing the appellant under the
1990 Rules would be giving a premium to the delay
and/or inaction on the part of the
department/authorities. There was an absolute
callousness on the part of the department/authorities.
The facts are conspicuous and manifest the grave delay
in entertaining the application submitted by the
appellant in seeking employment which is indisputably
attributable to the department/authorities. In fact, the
appellant has been deprived of seeking compassionate
appointment, which he was otherwise entitled to under
the 1990 Rules. The appellant has become a victim of
the delay and/or inaction on the part of the
department/authorities which may be deliberate or for
reasons best known to the authorities concerned.
Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case, keeping the larger question open and aside, as
observed herein above, we are of the opinion that the
appellant herein shall not be denied appointment under
the 1990 Rules.
18. If the object and purpose of appointment on
compassionate grounds as envisaged under the relevant
2022 SCC Online SC 684
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 tardy 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 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."
25. In the above said case, an application was made for
compassionate appointment and the delay was occurred
due to the negligence of the authorities. In the said
circumstances, the Apex Court interfered and directed the
authorities to consider the case of the appellant therein for
appointment on compassionate grounds. But, in the case on
hand, there is no delay. Initially, the appointment of the 6th
respondent is accepted by all the family members and later
after completion of more than four years, the petitioner
made a representation for removal of the 6th respondent.
Hence, the above case is not applicable to the case on hand.
26. With regard to compassionate appointment, learned
counsel for the respondents relied upon the Division Bench
judgment of this Court in W.A.No.269 of 2005, dated
28.04.2025, wherein the Division Bench held as follows :-
The Writ Petitioner himself disclosed his age as 44
years in the cause title of the writ petition. The Writ
Petitioner did not approach the respondents and this Court
for grant of compassionate appointment within reasonable
time upon attaining majority. Merely because litigation at
the instance of the writ petitioner's brother viz., Ibrahim
was pending, it cannot be said that it is a justifiable reason
to ignore the enormous delay of few decades. Apart from
this, in the case of Debabrata Tiwari (supra), the Apex Court
opined as under :-
Considering the second question referred to above, in
the first instance, regarding whether applications for
compassionate appointment could be considered, after a
delay of several years, we are of the view that, in a case
where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of
the applicant is claiming compassionate appointment or the
authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy
is diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of
the family of the deceased, may have changed, for the
better, since the time of the death of the government
employee. In such circumstances, Courts or other relevant
authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such
prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was
able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing
gainful employment from some other source. Granting
compassionate appointment in such a case, as noted by this
Court in HAKIM SINGH would amount to treating a claim for
compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of
inheritance based on a line of succession which is contrary
to the Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is not
a vested right and the same is relative to the financial
condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the
deceased government employee as a consequence of his
death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be
entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time
since the death of the government employee."
(emphasis supplied)
27. In the above case, after a delay of several years, the
petitioner therein approached the respondents for grant of
compassionate appointment. In those circumstances, while
setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge, allowed
the W.A. by observing that a claim for compassionate
appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a
considerable period of time since the death of the
Government employee and also observed that the petitioner
therein does not deserve any right of consideration for
compassionate appointment after few decades from the date
of attaining majority.
28. Strictly speaking, the above said case is not fully
applicable to the case on hand. In the instant case, the
petitioner has given consent for appointment of the 6th
respondent as Attender on compassionate grounds and later
after four years, she made a representation seeking removal
of the 6th respondent and the same cannot be entertained.
More so, without any complaint, the 6th respondent has
completed nearly 15 years of service. At this stage, it would
not be appropriate to interfere with the compassionate
appointment of the 6th respondent. Moreover, there is no
illegality or irregularity in appointing the 6th respondent
under compassionate grounds. Hence, the writ petition is
devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
29. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as
to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
26.11.2025
Prv
