Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 696 (AP)

N. Sujana v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-07-29

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2022
JUDGMENT Dr. K. Manmadha Rao, J. - This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:- '...to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo dated 06.05.2020 of the 2nd Respondent bearing R.C. No. 530/ME 3/2019 and consequential Memo Dated 16.05.2020 of the 4th respondent bearing C. No. 4362/A1/2014 declining compassionate appointment to the petitioner being the younger sister of the deceased unmarried brother died in harness as illegal arbitrary and unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India G.O. Ms. No. 612 General Administration Services-A Department, dated 30.10.1991 and the principles of natural justice and to consequently to direct the Respondents to appoint the petitioner in a suitable post on compassionate grounds being eligible to be considered for the post and pass such other order or orders.......' 2. The case of the petitioner is that the mother of the petitioner Kakani Venkata Subbamma submitted a representation to the 4th respondent for compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The 4th respondent addressed a letter to the 3rd respondent dated 24.12.2014 recommending for compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The 3rd respondent in turn issued an Endorsement dated 25.8.2015 seeking clarification from the Government as to the eligibility. Subsequently, the 1st respondent by Memo No. 10332/Legal/II/A2/15-1, dated 14.12.2016 issued clarification stating that the employee happened to have remained unmarried enables the younger brother or sister of such deceased employee to be considered for compassionate appointment provided there is no earning member in the family as per the orders of G.O. Ms. No. 612, GAD, dated 30.10.1991. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent also addressed a letter to the 4th respondent dated 15.5.2017 relating to the proposal of compassionate appointment of the petitioner is returned to take further action. Thereafter, the petitioner's mother made another representation and the 4th respondent sent a Memorandum dated 16.5.2020 stating that the application of the petitioner is not feasible for compassionate appointment for acceptance. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner's mother made another representation and the 4th respondent sent a Memorandum dated 16.5.2020 stating that the application of the petitioner is not feasible for compassionate appointment for acceptance. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents denying all the averments made in the petition and contended that the subject matter has been got enquired by Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Special Branch, Nellore and submitted his report vide C. No. 1613/VR-SB-NLR/2019, dated 18.2.2020 in which it was elicited that the applicant K.V. Subbamma is the wife of Sri. Kakani Sriramulu, late PC-421 who worked in Police Department as Police constable and died. They had two sons and one daughter. The 1st son Kakani Venkateswarlu, worked as PC-1828 in SPS Nellore District and died in a road accident and the 2nd son Kakani Uday Kumar, worked as PC-421 in SPS Nellore District died in train accident on 15.2.2014. Since the date of death of her 2nd son Kakani Uday Kumar, the applicant K. Venkata Subbamma was living alone separately at Nellore. Further, the applicant Smt. K.V. Subbamma died on 28.10.2019 and the Death Certificate to that effect was issued on 20.11.2019 by the Registrar (Birth & Death), Municipal Corporation, Nellore. It was also elicited that Smt. K. Sujana, the daughter of the application i.e., the petitioner herein is married to one Nagaraju 15 years ago and she is residing with her family separately in Kondayapalem Gate, Nellore Town. In the light of the above, a detailed factual report was submitted to the Director General of Police, A.P., Mangalagiri furnishing the entire correspondence done vide C. No. 4362/A1/2014 dated 5.3.2020 of the Superintendent of Police, SPS Nellore District. After due examination of the case, the Director General of Police has issued a Memorandum in Rc. No. 530/ME.3/2019, dated 6.5.2020. Subsequently, the Director General of Police, Mangalagiri, has requested the Superintendent of Police, SPS Nellore district to take further necessary action at his end and inform the petitioner suitably in the matter under intimation to their office. The same was informed to the petitioner also vide C. No. 4362/AS1/2014, dated 16.5.2020. Hence, as there are no grounds to entertain the petition, prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. 5. The same was informed to the petitioner also vide C. No. 4362/AS1/2014, dated 16.5.2020. Hence, as there are no grounds to entertain the petition, prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the memos of the respondents No. 2 and 4 are in violation of articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and the respondents have failed to note that there is no clog for appointment of married sister on compassionate grounds of deceased who is unmarried because the G.O. Ms. No. 612 General Administration (Services-A) Department dated 30.10.1991 is silent about the status of the sister or the brother whether married or unmarried. 6. On the other hand, learned government Pleader would contend that in accordance with the conditions laid down in G.O. Ms. No. 687, G.A. (Ser. A) Department, dated 3.10.1997 the candidates eligible for appointment under this measure shall be the spouse (or) the dependent children of the deceased Government servant who died in harness, there being no other earning member in the family. Further the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 350, G.A. (Ser.A) Department, dated 30.7.1999 have 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 for compassionate appointment, provided she is dependent on the deceased Government employee and subject to satisfying the other conditions and instructions issued on the scheme from time to time. He further argued that in the light of the provisions in force and as per the clarifications issued by the Government vide Memo No. 10332/legal-II/A2/15-1, Home (Legal-II) Department dated 14.12.2016 and Memo No. 406/10/Admn.II/2004 Finance (Admn.II) Department, dated 20.03.2004, the request of the petitioner K. Sujana, younger married sister of Late K. Uday Kumar, PC-421 for providing employment on compassionate grounds is not feasible for acceptance. 7. As seen from the impugned order in the present writ petition, the respondents rejected the request of the petitioner holding that in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 612 General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 30.10.1991, the petitioner case cannot be considered as she was the elder married sister of the deceased Government employee, who remained unmarried. 7. As seen from the impugned order in the present writ petition, the respondents rejected the request of the petitioner holding that in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 612 General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 30.10.1991, the 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. Damayanthi vs. APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director and others holding that the married daughters are entitled for compassionate appointments. 8. 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 petitioner to provide appointment on compassionate grounds. 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. 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' 9. 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 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. 10. 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. 11. 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.' 12. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer the case in the Superintending Engineer vs. V. Jaya (2007) 6 MLI 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.' 12. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer the case in the Superintending Engineer vs. V. Jaya (2007) 6 MLI 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.' 13. In view of the foregoing reasons and in view of the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above, this Court deems fit to allow the present writ petition 1 with the following directions; (i) The Memo in Rc No. 530/ME.3/2019 dated 6.5.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequential Memo of the 4th respondent dated 16.5.2020 in C. No. 4362/A1/2014 are hereby set aside. (ii) The respondents shall consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 28.09.2019 and provide appointment to the petitioner in any suitable post on compassionate grounds, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.