Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 12 (AP)

Peravarapu Devi v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-01-04

NINALA JAYASURYA

body2022
ORDER : The Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the Letter dated 08.11.2021 and Memo dated 12.11.2021 of the respondent Nos.3 and 5 in rejecting the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner, in any suitable post, on compassionate grounds by setting aside the above mentioned Letter and Memo impugned in the Writ Petition. 2. Heard Mr. M.Kesava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the contesting respondents. 3. The brief facts, as set out in the affidavit filed in the Writ Petition, may be narrated for better appreciation of the petitioner’s case: The petitioner is the daughter of one Mr. Y.Satyanarayana, who died in harness while working as watchman under the 3rd respondent on 23.10.2020 leaving behind him the petitioner’s mother, elder married sister, younger brother and the petitioner as his legal heirs. The petitioner’s mother made a representation to the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds as the bread winner in the family died in harness. Along with said representation, the relevant documents i.e., No Earning Member Certificate, Family Members Certificate, No Objection Affidavit of the petitioner’s sister and brother etc., were enclosed. The respondent No.3 instead of considering the said application, rejected the same through Memo dated 08.11.2021 inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner is married and not dependent upon her parents. Further, reliance is placed on Memo of the Government dated 20.03.2004. In consequence of the same, the 5th respondent, issued letter dated 12.11.2021 rejecting the petitioner’s request in terms of the Memo of the 3rd respondent dated 08.11.2021. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that as per the scheme notified by the Government, the dependent children of a deceased Government servant who dies while in service are eligible for compassionate appointment to a suitable post and the Government in Memo No.116417/Ser.A/2003-1, dated 08.10.2003 clarified that the married daughters are entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds, subject to eligibility as per the scheme notified by the Government. He further submits that as per the said Memo, the choice among the dependents was conferred on the wife of deceased Government employee and in accordance with the same, No Objection affidavit was submitted along with the petitioner’s application to the effect that the other dependents of the deceased employee have no objection for considering the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment. The learned counsel while stating that, in fact, the 3rd respondent had issued orders appointing the married daughters of deceased employees on compassionate grounds as detailed in the affidavit, further submits that insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the same benefit was not extended. He submits that the reliance placed by the 3rd respondent on Memo dated 20.03.2004 is not sustainable in the light of the orders of Hon’ble Division Bench in Commissioner of Police and Others v. K.Padmaja, 2013 (4) ALT 501 and W.P.No.3017 of 2020 dated 11.12.2020, W.P.No.17548 of 2019 dated 15.12.2020 etc., as also a judgment of learned Single Judge of High Court of Karnataka in Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik v. State of Karanataka, 2020 SCC Online Karnataka 3397 and urges that the Writ Petition be allowed by setting aside the proceedings impugned in the Writ Petition. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III, on the other hand, on the basis of written instructions and the brief note received from the respondents 3 and 5 vehemently opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner. He submits that the son of the deceased employee in fact, made an application for appointment on compassionate grounds, but the same was returned as he is over aged and not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, he submits that after detailed examination of her case for compassionate appointment with the existing Orders/Circular Memos issued by the Government, the respondent-authorities have rejected the petitioner’s application as she is a married daughter and not dependent on that deceased employee. He submits that as per Memo No.406/10/A.1/Admn.II/2004 dated 20.03.2004, once marriage is performed, daughter is not dependent on her father/mother, even if she is unemployed or her husband is unemployed and that a married daughter is dependent on her parents, if she is living with them when her husband deserts her or disappears for years together or dies. He submits that as per Memo No.406/10/A.1/Admn.II/2004 dated 20.03.2004, once marriage is performed, daughter is not dependent on her father/mother, even if she is unemployed or her husband is unemployed and that a married daughter is dependent on her parents, if she is living with them when her husband deserts her or disappears for years together or dies. In view of the same, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the action of the respondent-authorities in rejecting the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be found fault with. Making the said submissions, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition. 6. This Court has considered the respective contentions of both the learned counsel and perused the materials on record. On due examination of the matter, the only point that falls for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment and if so, the impugned communications are liable to be set aside? 7. There is no dispute that the petitioner is daughter of the deceased Government employee. The Family Member Certificate, No Earning Member Certificate issued by the concerned Tahsildar, Rajamahendravaram Rural, reveals the status of the petitioner as legal heir of the deceased and her financial status. Further, the certificate dated 16.11.2021 would go to show that the petitioner was deserted by her husband eight years back and she was under the guardianship of her father i.e., the deceased employee. The said crucial aspect was not considered by the respondents and by simply referring to Memo dated 20.03.2004, the case of the petitioner was rejected on the premise that she is a married daughter and living with her husband and as such she is not dependent on her deceased father. The said rejection exhibits non application of mind to the relevant aspects and not sustainable on that sole ground. Be that as it may. 8. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.612, General Administration (SER-A) Department dated 30.10.1991 provided that where the deceased employee does not have any male child but leaves behind him/her, a married daughter and unmarried minor daughter, the choice of selecting one of them for appointment under the Social Security scheme shall be left to the spouse of the deceased. 8. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.612, General Administration (SER-A) Department dated 30.10.1991 provided that where the deceased employee does not have any male child but leaves behind him/her, a married daughter and unmarried minor daughter, the choice of selecting one of them for appointment under the Social Security scheme shall be left to the spouse of the deceased. Thereafter, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.350 dated 30.07.1999, clarified that when there is only a married daughter to the deceased Government employee without older or younger brothers or sisters and the spouse of the deceased Government employee is not willing to avail the compassionate appointment, such married daughter may be considered compassionate appointment, provided she is dependent on the deceased Government employee and subject to satisfying the conditions and instructions issued on the scheme from time to time. 9. The above said Government Order dated 30.07.1999 and subsequent memo dated 20.03.2004 were considered by the Hon’ble Division Bench in K.Padmaja’s case referred to supra. The Hon’ble Division Bench while dealing with the Writ Petition filed by the Department against the orders passed by the erstwhile A.P.A.T., in O.A.No.6938 of 2012, considered similar contentions advanced and dismissed the Writ Petition confirming the orders in favour of the applicant for compassionate appointment. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Division Bench, inter alia, opined that even if the applicant is residing in a separate house, that by itself is not ground to reject the claim of the appointment. The Hon’ble Division Bench also held that merely because family pension is paid to the wife of the deceased, the same is not a ground to deprive the benefit of compassionate appointment under the scheme notified by the Government for the children of the deceased, who dies in harness. 10. The above referred judgment as also the other judgments on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner applies to the facts of present case. In view of the same, the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner are upheld and contentions contra of the learned Assistant Government Pleader are rejected. 11. It may not be out of place here to refer to the judgment in Bhuvaneswari V.Puranik’s case. In view of the same, the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner are upheld and contentions contra of the learned Assistant Government Pleader are rejected. 11. It may not be out of place here to refer to the judgment in Bhuvaneswari V.Puranik’s case. The learned Judge while dealing with the object of compassionate appointments succinctly dealt with the legal position and allowed a Writ Petition, wherein a challenge was laid to Rule 2(1) (a) (i), Rule 2(1) (b) and Rule 3(2) (i) (c) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, holding inter alia as follows: “If the marital status of a son does not make any difference in Law to his entitlement for seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, the marital status of a daughter should make no difference, as the married daughter does not seize to be a part of the family and Law cannot make an assumption that married sons alone continue to be the part of the family.” 12. In view of the above factual and legal position, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned Memo and Letter of the respondent Nos.3 and 5 dated 08.11.2021 and 12.11.2021 respectively are set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in any suitable post, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.