Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 67 (AP)

B. Prasanth v. Central Provident Fund Office

2021-02-10

BATTU DEVANAND

body2021
ORDER : 1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “......to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not giving a suitable post or job to the petitioner in their organization under compassionate grounds due to the death of his father in 2006 besides several representations being, made by petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to give a suitable post or job to the petitioner in the organization of the respondents and to pass such other and further orders in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, as per the averments made in the affidavit of the petitioner filed along with Writ Petition, are as under: (i) The father of the petitioner Sri. B. Ranganatha Swamy joined in the service as a clerk in the office of respondent No. 4 in the year 1978 and later he was transferred to the Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Kadapa, on promotion as UDC. He married Smt. Chandrika in 1978 and they were blessed with three children including the petitioner. Later, due to differences between them, they obtained divorce from the competent Court on 12-07-1988 when the petitioner and his sisters were minors. After divorce, his father took the custody of the petitioner along with his sisters. Later, he married Smt. G. Swarnalatha in the year 1988, who is a B.A. and B.Ed. graduate and who got a Govt. job later as a Elementary School Teacher in the year 1990 and drawing about 20 to 25 thousand per month as salary. She has only one son born through the father of the petitioner. (ii) The father of the petitioner died in the year 2006. After his death, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondents on 05-04-2006, with all relevant documents, seeking to provide employment on compassionate grounds to him. As there is no progress in spite of several representations made by the petitioner, thereafter, the petitioner is constrained to file the present Writ Petition. 3. Respondent Nos. After his death, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondents on 05-04-2006, with all relevant documents, seeking to provide employment on compassionate grounds to him. As there is no progress in spite of several representations made by the petitioner, thereafter, the petitioner is constrained to file the present Writ Petition. 3. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed their Counter Affidavit denying the averments made in the affidavit while submitting that after the death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner made an application to the respondents for the post of MTA on compassionate grounds, and thereafter, the respondent authorities sent the same to the Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Southern Zone, on 11-04-2008, which, in turn, sent a letter to, the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi, duly recommending the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of MTA. Later, the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected by the Head Office, vide Letter No. HRM III/II (14) 2006/AP/56619, dated 24-10-2008, on the ground that the first wife of the deceased has already expired and the second wife of the deceased is working as Government Teacher and hence, found no liability for compassionate appointment. 4. Thereafter, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Hyderabad, addressed a letter to the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi, duly requesting him to reopen the case for afresh decision. As the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi, who is vested with the powers under Rules, has already rejected the request of the petitioner, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered under compassionate appointment. Hence, the learned counsel sought to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. Heard Sri. S.S. Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. P. Ramabhupal Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Employees' Provident Fund Organization. 6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel and upon perusing the material available on record, it appears that the father of the petitioner, Sri. B. Ranganatha Swamy, while working as SSSA (TBP), SRO, Kadapa, expired on 14.02.2006 in harness. Basing on the application submitted by the petitioner, the 4th respondent sent a proposal for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds to the 1st respondent and certain clarifications were sought by the 1st respondent and the same were replied by 4th respondent. 7. B. Ranganatha Swamy, while working as SSSA (TBP), SRO, Kadapa, expired on 14.02.2006 in harness. Basing on the application submitted by the petitioner, the 4th respondent sent a proposal for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds to the 1st respondent and certain clarifications were sought by the 1st respondent and the same were replied by 4th respondent. 7. Thereafter, it appears from the material available on record, several representations are submitted by the petitioner to the respondents and a representation, dated 01.12.2008 is also submitted by the Employees' Provident Fund Staff Union, requesting the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds. The 4th respondent vide Letter No. AP/RO/GNT/HRM-I/S-4/F-28/Comp.Aptt/2011/733, dated 24.08.2011 once again requested the 1st respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment to the post of MTA at the earliest. In spite of submissions of several representations by the petitioner and the remainders from the 4th respondent, there is no any positive action on behalf of the 1st respondent, who is the competent authority to consider the claim of the petitioner. 8. But, it appears from the contents of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected by the 1st respondent vide Letter No. HRM III/II (14) 2006/AP/56619, dated 24.10.2008 on the ground that the first wife of the deceased has already expired and second wife of the deceased is working as Government Teacher and hence, found no liability for compassionate appointment. Though it was mentioned in the counter affidavit of the respondents that the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide letter, dated 24.10.2008, there is no mention in the counter affidavit whether that letter was communicated/served to the petitioner or not. If it is served on the petitioner, definitely, he has to challenge that rejection order. But in the absence of any mention about serving of the rejection letter, dated 24.10.2008, there is no opportunity to the petitioner to challenge the same before appropriate Court of law. 9. The view of this Court that the rejection letter, dated 24.10.2008 issued by the 1st respondent may not be communicated to the petitioner is supported by the letter addressed by the 4th respondent on 24.08.2011 to the 1st respondent. 9. The view of this Court that the rejection letter, dated 24.10.2008 issued by the 1st respondent may not be communicated to the petitioner is supported by the letter addressed by the 4th respondent on 24.08.2011 to the 1st respondent. In the Letter No. AP/RO/GNT/HRM-I/S-4/F-28/Comp.Aptt/2011/733, dated 24.08.2011, the 4th respondent i.e. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Guntur Urban brought all the factual position of the petitioner to the notice of the 1st respondent and requested to consider the case of the petitioner at an earliest. In the said letter also there is no any mention about the rejection order, dated 24.10.2008 of the 1st respondent. As such, in the considered opinion of this Court, the rejection Letter No. HRM III/II (14) 2006/AP/56619, dated 24.10.2008 as stated in the counter affidavit was not served on the petitioner. 10. However, as seen from the ground taken by the 1st respondent to reject the claim of the petitioner is that the first wife of the deceased (i.e. mother of the petitioner) has already expired and second wife of the deceased is working as Government Teacher and as such, it is found no liability for compassionate appointment by the respondents. In our view, the ground taken by the 1st respondent to reject the claim of the petitioner appears to be unreasonable. 11. It appears from the record that the mother of the petitioner i.e. Chandrika obtained the decree of divorce from the father of the petitioner by judgment, dated 12.07.1988 in O.P. No. 18 of 1988 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddapah. The copy of the judgment is filed as material paper along with this writ petition and it was also submitted to the respondents. Subsequent to the divorce with the mother of the petitioner, his father got married another woman viz. Smt. G. Swarnalatha in the year 1988. There is no dispute that the said Swarnalatha is working as a Government Teacher. But the contention of the petitioner is that during the life time of his father, in the year 2001, when the petitioner was 19 years old, the stepmother threw him out due to her dislike towards him. He was kept in a separate home by his father and he sustained with the help of his father and by doing some small mechanic works. He was kept in a separate home by his father and he sustained with the help of his father and by doing some small mechanic works. After death of his father, the family pension is being taken every month by his step-mother and her son and not a single pie is given to the petitioner. Under those circumstances, having no source of livelihood the petitioner submitted application for compassionate appointment as Legal Heir of the deceased father. 12. It also appears from the material available on record that the Regional authorities of the respondents' organization have conducted an enquiry and sent a favourable report to the 1st respondent recommending the name of the petitioner for grant of a post under compassionate grounds. Due to the in action of the 1st respondent in considering the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, he submitted several representations to the respondents and the copies of the same are filed as material papers. 13. After careful consideration of all the facts in this issue, it can be safely concluded that the mother of the petitioner deserted his father when the petitioner was aged 6 years, subsequently she died and he lost father in the year 2006. Thereafter, he became orphan. The version of the petitioner can be trusted by this Court that the stepmother is not taking any care of the petitioner in the light of the enquiry report submitted by the Regional Officers of the respondents organization and also in the light of the representation of the Employees' Provident Fund Staff Union, dated 01.12.2008. On perusal of these documents available on record, particularly, the report of enquiry officers, in which it was revealed that the petitioner living separately in a state that of orphan without any parental care or financial background and his step-mother is not looking after his livelihood, his case has to be treated as that of an orphan and may be sympathetically considered. Thus, such cases should be dealt with a humane outlook and thoughtfulness. 14. Thus, such cases should be dealt with a humane outlook and thoughtfulness. 14. The view of this Court had fortified from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Balbir Kaur vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. 2000 (4) ALT 65 (SC) : (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.” 15. 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-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. 16. In the light of the settled proposition of law stated supra and for the above mentioned reasons, the present writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner to appoint him in any suitable post on compassionate' grounds in the respondents organization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There is no order as to costs. 17. There is no order as to costs. 17. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.