Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 163 (AP)

H. Sita Ratnam v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2021-03-19

BATTU DEVANAND

body2021
ORDER : This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the following relief: o issue a writ, order or direction especially in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the proceedings vide RC.No.145-A3/2009, dt.28.01.2015, issued by the 3rd respondent contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.612 G A Services-A department dated 30.10.1991 Memo No.140733/Ser A/20031 G A Ser A Dept dated 14.11.2003 and A Memo No.406/10/A 1 Admn.11/2004 Fin Admn II Dated 20.03.2004, as illegal arbitrary and Violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceedings vide Rc.No.145-A3/2009, dt.28.01.2015 of the 3rd respondent by appointing the 2nd petitioner on compassionate grounds and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.” 2) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. 3) Heard Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Education appearing for the respondents and perused the record. 4) The facts of the case are that one Sri H.A. Visweswara Rao, the husband of 1st petitioner, who worked as a Messenger in the Office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Peddapuram, died on 23.01.2009 while in service. The 1st petitioner was blessed with one daughter i.e., 2nd petitioner herein and one son viz., Sri H.N.M. Rajeswara Rao. 5) Consequent to the demise of the husband of the 1st petitioner, her son Sri H.N.M. Rajeswara Rao had applied for 4th employment under compassionate grounds and the respondent issued proceedings in R.Dis.A6/2793/2009, dated 18.08.2009 appointing her son as Junior Assistant and he was allotted to the Office of the 3rd respondent. He joined duty as Junior Assistant in respondent office on 23.09.2009. Thereafter, he met with an accident on 09.10.2009 and unfortunately died leaving behind the petitioners. He did not receive even his first salary as the period between his joining into service and demise is just 15 days only. The petitioners are the dependents on the deceased and as such, they requested to provide appointment on compassionate grounds to the 2nd petitioner. 6) The 2nd petitioner studied up to X class and though she got married, she is living with the 1st petitioner and dependent on the 1st petitioner and deceased brother as she is having no source of income. 6) The 2nd petitioner studied up to X class and though she got married, she is living with the 1st petitioner and dependent on the 1st petitioner and deceased brother as she is having no source of income. Due to sudden demise of the breadwinners in a very short span of time, the petitioners are living in pathetic condition. On 31.10.2009 the 1st petitioner submitted a representation to the 4th respondent requesting to provide appointment in any suitable post to the 2nd petitioner on compassionate grounds. The said representation was rejected vide proceedings in Rc.No.145-A3/2009, dated 23.009.2010 of the 3rd respondent. Against the said proceedings, the present writ petition is filed. 7) On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader would submit that the request of the petitioners is not feasible for consideration in terms of G.O.Ms.No.612, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 30.10.1991 and Government Memo No.17897/Ser.A/2000-1, dated 20.04.2000 and as such, the 2nd respondent vide proceedings in Rc.No.341/F1-2/2011, dated 13.09.2011 confirmed the proceedings of the 3rd respondent. 8) The Hon’ble Minister for Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development, Fisheries and Veterinary University has forwarded a note to the 3rd respondent requesting to forward the request of the 2nd petitioner to the Government through the Commissioner & Director of School Education, Hyderabad, for getting necessary relaxation of the Rule for providing employment on compassionate grounds. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent submitted proposals to the 2nd respondent on 30.06.2011. The 2nd respondent, vide proceedings in Rc.No.341/F1-2/2011, dated 13.09.2011, stating that the orders of the 3rd respondent holds good. The 1st respondent also issued clarification in Memo No.21855/Ser.II.1/2011 Edn (SE.Ser.I) Dept., dated 27.01.2012 stating that it is not possible for providing appointment to the 2nd petitioner under compassionate grounds as per the existing rules. 9) It appears no intimation was given to the petitioners. At that stage, the petitioners filed the present writ petition against the action of the respondents in not considering their request for compassionate appointment. In W.P.M.P.44147 of 2014 by its order, dated 17.12.2014, this Court granted interim direction directing the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioners on 31.10.2009 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.612, G.A. (Services-A), Department, dated 31.10.1991 & Memo dated 14.11.2003 & 20.03.2004, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. In W.P.M.P.44147 of 2014 by its order, dated 17.12.2014, this Court granted interim direction directing the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioners on 31.10.2009 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.612, G.A. (Services-A), Department, dated 31.10.1991 & Memo dated 14.11.2003 & 20.03.2004, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. In compliance of the said interim direction, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings in Rc.No.145-A3/2009, dated 28.01.2015 rejecting the request of the 1st petitioner to provide appointment to the 2nd petitioner on compassionate grounds stating that their request is not feasible with reference to the existing rules. 10) Learned Government Pleader further submits that the 2nd petitioner is an elder sister of the deceased government employee i.e., late H.N.M. Rajeswara Rao, Junior Assistant, Office of the 3rd respondent, and as such, she is not entitled for compassionate appointment as per the existing rules and sought dismissal of the writ petition. 11) Having heard the submissions of both the counsel and upon perusing the material available on record, it is appropriate to extract the relevant paragraphs of G.O.Ms.No.612, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 30.10.1991, Memo No.17897/Ser.A/2000-1, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 20.04.2000 and Memo No.406/10/A.I/Admn.II/2004, Finance (Admn.II) Department, dated 20.03.2004, for better adjudication of the matter. (1) G.O.Ms.No.612, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 30.10.1991 at para No.2 (i): The younger brother/sister of the deceased Government Servant who remained unmarried can be considered for appointment under the scheme, provided there is no other earning member in the family. The cases which came up for consideration earlier need not be reopened. (2) Memo No.17897/Ser.A/2000-1, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 20.04.2000 at para No.4: It is hereby clarified that the words “remained unmarried” occurring in para 2(1) of G.O. second cited are applicable to the deceased Government employee only and therefore only in cases where the deceased Government employee happens to have remained unmarried, then only the younger brother/sister of such deceased Government employee can be considered for compassionate appointment provided there is no other earning member in the family as per the orders issued at para 2 (1) of the G.O. second cited. (3) Memo No.406/10/A.I/Admn.II/2004, Finance (Admn.II) Department, dated 20.03.2004 at paras 1 and 2: The attention of the Director of State Audit, A.P., Hyderabad is invited to the reference cited and he is informed that a married daughter can be given Compassionate Appointment under the following circumstances: (i) There should be no younger or older unmarried dependents in the family and the spouse should be unwilling of ineligible for appointment. (ii) The married daughter should be dependent on her father/mother who was a Government Employee/ deceased Government Employee. (iii) There is no objection to consider one of the married daughters if there are more than one married daughters as long as the condition No.1 & 2 are fulfilled. 2. He is also informed that once marriage is performed, a daughter is not dependent on her father/mother even if she is un-employee or her husband is un-employee. A married daughter is dependent on her father/mother if she is living with her father/mother when her husband deserts her or disappears for years together or dies. In all such cases, the husband should not have left any property/income to his wife and the married daughter is solely dependent on the support provided by her father/mother and is an un-employee. 12) On careful perusal of the above mentioned Government Orders and instructions, it is clear that if a Government Servant who remained unmarried died in harness, the claim for appointment under the compassionate scheme can be considered to the younger brother/sister of the said Government Servant. It means, if a Government Servant who is unmarried dies in harness the claim of his elder brother or sister will not be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. In the Memo No.17897/Ser.A/2000-1, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 20.04.2000 and Memo No.406/10/A.I/Admn.II/2004, Finance (Admn.II) Department, dated 20.03.2004 the Government clarified the same. 13) Now the issue before this Court for consideration is the request made by the 1st petitioner seeking appointment in any suitable post on compassionate grounds to the 2nd petitioner for sudden demise of her son, who was appointed on compassionate grounds for untimely death of her husband, can be considered as per the scheme of compassionate appointment formulated by the State Government. 14) In G.O.Ms.No.687 General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 03.10.1977, the Government issued orders formulating the scheme of compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased Government employees. 14) In G.O.Ms.No.687 General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 03.10.1977, the Government issued orders formulating the scheme of compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased Government employees. As per the said scheme, the candidates eligible for appointment under the scheme shall be the spouse of the deceased Government servant or the dependent children of the deceased Government servant who died in harness, there being no other earning member in the family. Further instructions were issued in G.O.Ms.No.612 General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 30.10.1991, clarifying that where the deceased employee does not have any male child but leaves behind him a married daughter and an unmarried minor daughter, the choice of selection of one of them for appointment under the social security scheme shall be left to the mother. The Government issued several instructions clarifying whose cases can be considered to reach the objective of the scheme of compassionate appointment to provide immediate relief to the family of the deceased in distress. 15) But the facts of the present case are entirely different to 1st examine the pathetic condition of the petitioner with reference to the various clarifications issued by the State Government. It has to be noted that the husband of the 1st petitioner died in harness on 23.01.2009 leaving his wife, married daughter and unmarried son. The son was provided compassionate appointment on 18.08.2009 and he joined the duties on 23.09.2009 and unfortunately, within 15 days i.e., on 08.10.2009 he met with an accident and died leaving behind his mother and elder married sister. As per the stand of the petitioners, the 2nd petitioner is dependent on the deceased employees i.e., her father and brother. Now due to sudden demise of the husband and son, the 1st petitioner became destitute without any source of income to service herself and she is in distress. Due to this reason, the 1st petitioner submitted representation on 31.10.2009 requesting to provide appointment on compassionate grounds to her daughter i.e., 2nd petitioner. 16) It appears on perusal of the order impugned in this present writ petition, the respondents rejected the request of the petitioners holding that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.612 General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 30.10.1991, the 2nd petitioner case cannot be considered as she was the elder married sister of the deceased Government employee, who remained unmarried. The issue of considering the case of married daughters is considered by this Court in Ch. The issue of considering the case of married daughters is considered by this Court in Ch. Damayanthi vs. APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director and others, 2021 SCC OnLine AP 382 holding that the married daughters are entitled for compassionate appointments. 17) If the case of the 2nd petitioner has to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds for the death of her father, in the light of the order passed by this Court in Ch. Damayanthi’s case (1 supra), she is entitled. But, in the present case, she is seeking appointment as a dependent of her brother who remained unmarried. The important point to be noted here is that the brother of the 2nd petitioner, who got appointment on compassionate grounds for the death of his father, died within 15 days from his joining duties. If the claim of the 1st petitioner to provide appointment in favour of the 2nd petitioner is not considered, the 1st petitioner will suffer a lot for her entire remaining life due to loss of two breadwinners of her family. The 2nd petitioner is alone remained to look after the welfare of her mother i.e., 1st petitioner, but she is not in a position to maintain herself. The case of the 2nd petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds is not considered, the object of scheme of compassionate appointments to provide financial support to the family of the deceased Government servants in distress would be defeated. 18) In the considered opinion of this Court, the condition stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.612, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 30.10.1991, in which it is provided that the younger brother/sister of the deceased Government servant, who remained unmarried, can be considered for appointment under the scheme, provided, there is no other earning member in the family, is coming in the way to consider the claim of the 1st petitioner to provide appointment on compassionate grounds in favour of the 2nd petitioner. The condition, in which it was stipulated that only younger brother or sister of the deceased Government servant, who remained unmarried, can be considered for appointment under the scheme is contrary to the objective of the scheme of compassionate appointments. There is no justification or acceptable reason in saying only younger brother and younger sister are only eligible for compassionate appointment for the demise of Government servant, who is unmarried died in harness. There is no justification or acceptable reason in saying only younger brother and younger sister are only eligible for compassionate appointment for the demise of Government servant, who is unmarried died in harness. The said condition is also creating discrimination between the younger and elder brothers and sisters, which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As such, we have no hesitation in holding that the condition stipulating eligibility for only “younger” brothers or sisters of the deceased Government servant who remained unmarried is “discriminatory”. 19) After considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and pathetic condition of the 1st petitioner who lost her husband and son in harness in a short span of time, this Court is of the opinion that 1st petitioner’s Right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is seriously effected. 20) The object of compassionate appointment is a social security measure to support the family of the deceased government servant, who dies in harness. The aim and object of the policy for compassionate appointment is to provide financial support to the family of the deceased employee, who left the dependents in distress and penury. The core aim of the object of providing compassionate appointment is to relief 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 the deceased employee for sudden demise of the Bread Winner could be solved for some extent by providing compassionate appointment to the one of the dependents of the deceased employee to look after the family. While the State Government and its instrumentalities implementing the scheme of compassionate appointments to help the destitute families of the deceased employees, but incorporating such clause in eligibility criteria is appears to be illegal and unjust. 21) Accordingly, the word “younger” mentioned at para No.2 (i) of G.O.Ms.No.612, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 30.10.1991 is liable to be quashed. 22) If the 2nd petitioner, who has to take care of her widowed mother, is not given compassionate appointment, the whole family will be pushed to indigenous condition and to penury and the core aim and object of the compassionate appointment scheme will be defeated. As such, this court holds that the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment under the “Bread Winner Scheme”. As such, this court holds that the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment under the “Bread Winner Scheme”. 23) The respondents ought to have considered the indigent condition of the family and all other aspects (i.e) the bread winners of the family unfortunately met with premature death resulting into untold financial sufferings for the entire family. It appears, the respondents have completely lost sight of this aspect of the matter while rejecting the representation of the petitioner. It appears the respondents without considering all the aspects in a comprehensive manner only on technicalities rejected the representation of the petitioner to consider her case for appointment on compassionate grounds. 24) On careful examination of the object of the scheme of compassionate appointment provided to the dependents of the Government employees, who die in harness, it has to be noted that with a noble object to help the families in distress of deceased employees, this scheme was introduced by the government which is laudable. The respondents ought to have considered the situation of the family of the deceased employee in a sympathetic way and with human touch and not only being followed by the technicalities. 25) The view of this Court had fortified from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Balbir Kaur vs. Steel Authority of India Limited, (2000) 6 SCC 493 , in which their Lordships held as hereunder: “In the case of appointment considering the social and economic justice as enshrined in the constitution, denials of deserving cases are liable to be set aside. Further, the purpose of providing compassionate ground to a son or daughter or a near relative of the deceased government servant is to render assistance to the family, which is found in indigenous circumstances. Hence, in considering the case for compassionate appointment, the authorities are supposed to adopt a humane outlook.” 26) In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer the case in the Superintending Engineer vs. V. Jaya, (2007) 6 MLJ 1011 , wherein their Lordships comprising a Division Bench of Madras High Court have held at para No.7 as extracted hereunder: 7. Hence, in considering the case for compassionate appointment, the authorities are supposed to adopt a humane outlook.” 26) In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer the case in the Superintending Engineer vs. V. Jaya, (2007) 6 MLJ 1011 , wherein their Lordships comprising a Division Bench of Madras High Court have held at para No.7 as extracted hereunder: 7. However, in a case of request for appointment on compassionate ground, however, the Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot ignore the very purpose of providing employment on compassionate ground to the dependant of an employee/government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else as it is done so in order to mitigate the hardship to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. The concept of compassionate employment is intended to alleviate the distress of the family and it is for such purpose appointments are permissible and provided even in the rules and regulations and any rigid approach or too technical objections may defeat the very object of the scheme. It is for that purpose while considering the request for compassionate appointment; the authorities are expected to act as a Good Samaritan overlooking the cobwebs of technicalities. 27) For the above mentioned reasons, this Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions; (i) The word “younger” mentioned at para No.2 (i) of G.O.Ms.No.612, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 30.10.1991 is quashed; (ii) The proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent in RC.No.145-A3/2009, dated 28.01.2015 is set aside; and (iii) The respondents shall consider the representation of the 1st petitioner, dated 31.10.2009 and provide appointment to the 2nd petitioner in any suitable post on compassionate grounds, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 28) There is no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.