Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1190 (AP)

N. Sri Bindu v. Revenue Divisional Officer

2010-11-26

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2010
Judgment Over the past few decades, not only police officials’ of different ranks, but also innocent citizens were killed by extremists. The Government evolved a policy for protecting the interests of the dependants of the police personnel killed by extremists. The policy provides for payment of ex-gratia, appointment of one of the dependants on compassionate grounds, payment of salary till the deceased would have attained the age of superannuation etc. So far as the civilians are concerned, initially a sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid as ex-gratia to their dependants. The amount was enhanced thereafter. This was followed by a decision, by the Government to appoint one of the dependants of deceased on compassionate grounds. G.O.Ms.No.469, General Administration (SC.A) Department, dated 08.11.1996, was issued, in this regard. However, the benefit was restricted to cases, where, the persons, who are killed subsequent to 26.02.1996. Recently, the Government reviewed its policy and issued G.O.Ms.No.504, General Administration (SC.A) Department, dated 11.08.2008, extending the benefit to the cases, where the innocent civilians were killed by extremists, prior to 26.02.1996 also. The father of the petitioner was killed by extremists on 25.01.1993. The mother of the petitioner was paid ex-gratia of Rs.25,000/-, on 30.03.1993. Another sum of Rs.25,000/-was paid on 03.06.1995. Since the death of the father of the petitioner occurred before 26.02.1996, the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds was not extended to them. In the light of G.O.Ms.No.504, dated 11.08.2008, issued by the Government, the petitioner submitted an application to the Government to provide appointment on compassionate grounds. Her case was recommended by a Minister in the Government also. Remarks of the District Collector, the 2nd respondent herein, were called for. On the basis of the remarks, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings, dated 12.07.2010, rejecting the case of the petitioner, on the ground that she was a minor, at the time of death of her father. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that various orders that are issued from time to time do not stipulate the age of the applicant, and as a matter of fact, there is a specific direction for relaxation of the condition as to age. She contends that the ground on which her application is rejected, is totally untenable. On behalf of the respondent, the 3rd respondent filed a detailed counter-affidavit. She contends that the ground on which her application is rejected, is totally untenable. On behalf of the respondent, the 3rd respondent filed a detailed counter-affidavit. It is stated that, unless an applicant is within the age limits stipulated under the State and Subordinate Rules, the case cannot be considered at all. Reference is made to G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 04.03.1998, and it is urged that the benefit is available only to those candidates, who attain the age of majority within two years from the date of death of the victim. It is stated that the case of the petitioner was considered in accordance with the relevant provisions and it was rejected, on finding that it does not fit into the prescribed parameters. Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for General Administration. There is no denial of the fact that the father of the petitioner viz., Sri N.Goverdhan Reddy, was killed by extremists on 25.01.1993. The Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.469, dated 08.11.1996, providing for employment of the dependants of such persons on compassionate grounds. However, para 4 of the said G.O. mandates that the order would come into force from 26.02.1996. This was interpreted as meaning that it does not cover the cases, which occurred prior to that date. It becomes necessary to extract two paragraphs of that G.O., to understand the extent of relaxation, which, the Government provided, as regards age etc. It reads: “The Collectors are authorized to issue orders in respect of any department where there is a vacancy for appointment of a person upto the level of Junior Assistant/Typist depending upon the qualifications of the applicant. The concerned appointing authority will issue the appointment orders on the direction of the Collector. The Collectors are also authorized to grant relaxation of age on case to case basis. The above orders will come into effect from 26.02.1996 i.e., the date of the Government Order first read above.” This was followed by G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 04.03.1998. It is important to note that this G.O. did not modify any conditions contained in G.O.Ms.No.469, dated 08.11.1996. On the other hand, it was intended to provide further relaxation. The above orders will come into effect from 26.02.1996 i.e., the date of the Government Order first read above.” This was followed by G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 04.03.1998. It is important to note that this G.O. did not modify any conditions contained in G.O.Ms.No.469, dated 08.11.1996. On the other hand, it was intended to provide further relaxation. The first two paragraphs of the G.O., reads as under: “In the reference 4th read above orders have been issued providing employment to the son or a daughter or spouse of any person killed in extremist violence and the Collectors have been authorized to issue orders. They were also authorized to grant relaxation of age on case to case basis. After further examination of the matter, Government have decided to issue the following relaxations in the appointment of a son/daughter/spouse of a person killed in extremist violence.” The further relaxations are in the form of permitting the candidates to acquire intermediate qualification within three years and degree qualification within five years, after they are appointed as Junior Assistants, in the subordinate offices and head ofdepartments. The power vested in the Collector to relax the age limit under G.O.Ms.No.469 was not at all meddled with. G.O.Ms.No.504, dated 11.08.2008, extended the benefits to the dependants of the victims in the incident that occurred prior to 26.02.1996 also. The petitioner submitted application in terms of this G.O. The 1st respondent called for the remarks of the 2nd respondent. The latter addressed a letter, dated 16.11.2009, furnishing the particulars of age of various applicants including the petitioner, as on the date of the incident. It was pointed out that the age of the petitioner was 11 years as on the date of the incident and clarification was sought. A reply, dated 01.01.2010, was issued by the 3rd respondent, which reads as under: “The attention of the Collector & District Magistrate, Mahabubnagar is invited to her letter cited and she is informed that the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.504, G.A. (SC.A) Department, dated 11.08.2008, are very clear and the proposal to consider the cases of minors for compassionate appointment, in relaxation of rules cannot be considered.” The impugned order is a sequel to this. The only basis for rejecting the case of the petitioner is that she was a minor of 11 years and did not attain the age of majority within two years from the date of death of her father. The basis for this appears to be the following clause under G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 04.03.1998: “In case of a minor, he can seek relief within a reasonable time which will be two years from the date of demise of the bread winner as stipulated in Govt.Memo No.610/Ser.A/78-11, Genl.Admn.Dept., dt.17.12.1979. If the spouse of the deceased is such a dependent and is seeking compassionate appointment, the upper age can be relaxed as contemplated in Govt. Memo No.1094/Ser.A/92-1, Genl.Admn.Dept., dt.23.12.1992.” From a perusal of this, it becomes clear that the approach of the 3rd respondent is totally untenable. The object with which the Government introduced the scheme, was completely ignored. The fact that the Collector i.e. Appointing Authority was conferred with the power to relax the age limits wherever necessary on case to case basis in the first G.O., itself, was not taken note of. Such wide powers were never curtailed or restricted. In ordinary cases of providing employment on compassionate grounds, the Rules or the scheme insist that an application must be made within one year from the date of death of the employee. The reason is that the scheme aims at rescuing the family, when it is in penury on account of the death of the employee, and if the family did not feel the necessity of availing the benefit for a period of one year, it is suggestive of the fact that the family can carry on without such benefit. The same cannot be said about the scheme evolved for the benefit of the dependants of the person killed in extremist violence. They do not have any definite source of income and family is snatched away, of the bread winner for no fault of them. At no point of time, the scheme stipulated the age limits for the dependants, so much so, the upper age limits of the spouses of the deceased were directed to be relaxed. As matter of fact an extraordinary benefit is conferred in the form of appointing dependants as junior assistants, etc, relaxing the qualifications and permitting them to acquire the qualifications within a stipulated time. As matter of fact an extraordinary benefit is conferred in the form of appointing dependants as junior assistants, etc, relaxing the qualifications and permitting them to acquire the qualifications within a stipulated time. When there is a specific provision in G.O.Ms.No.469, dated 08.11.1996, conferring power upon the 2nd respondent to relax age limit, it was not necessary for her, to seek permission of the 3rd respondent to relax the age limit. The 3rd respondent has taken a perverse view of the matter and rejected the claim of the petitioner. The very fact that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.504, dated 11.08.2008, extending the benefit to the victims of the incidents that occurred prior to 1996, discloses that the dependants would either be age barred or under aged at the relevant point of time and still the benefit deserves to be extended. The 3rd respondent has denied to the petitioner, what Government in its wisdom wanted to extend. At any rate, what becomes relevant is the age of the candidate as on the date of appointment. The petitioner acquired right to submit application only in the year 2008 and it is nobody’s case that she needs any relaxation of age as on the date of her application. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The 3rd respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on the application of the petitioner by treating her as not requiring the relaxation of age limits, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as costs.