Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 306 (AP)

P. Raju v. District Collector

2023-02-03

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2023
ORDER : This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:- “…to declare the action of the respondents in issued the impugned Proceedings Rc.No.74616/2017-A9, dated 05.10.2017 wherein rejected the petitioners case for compassionate appointment under G.O.Ms.No.118, Finance and Planning Fin Wing PC.III Department, dated 18.08.1999 as highly illegal, arbitrary and consequentially this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents herein to consider the applicant case for compassionate appointment in any suitable post under G.O.Ms.No.118 Finance and Planning (Fin Wing P C.III) Department, dated 18.08.1999 by set aside the impugned proceedings dated 05.10.2017 and pass such other order or orders…….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s father P. Nageswara Rao belongs to SC category and appointed as NMR (Sweeper) at Dowleswaram Gram Panchayat vide proceedings No.6850/85/A3, dated 1.4.1985 by the 2nd respondent. Later, the 1st respondent had issued proceedings in L.Dis.No.13373/91-A3, dated 31.12.1991 stating that the petitioner’s father and others eligible NMRs were converted into Last Grade Service and granted the time scale of Rs.740-15-950-20-1150 keeping in view their length of his service and eligibility. But, later, the 1st respondent had cancelled the conversion orders vide proceedings No.5693/91/A2, dated 6.2.1993 on certain allegations. Against the same, the petitioner’s father had preferred OA No.768/1993 on the file of Hon’ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal and the same was allowed by the Tribunal setting aside the impugned order dated 6.2.1993 and directed to continue the petitioner in the time scales with a liberty to complete the enquiry on the allegations. While pending regularization of the petitioner’s father services, unfortunately he died on 3.5.2016 as NMR. Subsequently, the petitioner herein had submitted representation to the respondents requested to appoint him on compassionate grounds in any suitable post as per G.O.Ms.No.118 F&P Department, dated 18.8.1999 in the light of G.O.Ms.No.212. As the respondents have not taken any action, the petitioner has approached the Tribunal by way of filing O.A No.2144 of 2017 seeking to consider his case in the existing vacancies and the same was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 1.9.2017 directed the respondents No.1 and 2 to consider the petitioner representation dated 22.11.2016 and 14.12.2016 as per GOMs.No.118 Finance and Planning (Fin.Wing.P.C.III) Department dated 18.08.1999 within a period of three months. But the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the 2nd respondent and issued the present impugned proceedings dated 5.10.2017. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent denied all the allegations made in the petition and contended that the petitioner has filed OA No.2144/2017 and the Tribunal has directed to consider the representations in terms of G.O.Ms.No.118 dated 18.8.1999 and in obedience of the same, speaking orders were issued to the petitioner through Roc.No.74616/2017-A9 Pts., dated 00.10.2017 by considering the representations submitted by the petitioner dated 22.11.2016 and 14.12.2016 and rejected the request of the petitioner since his father is not eligible for regularization of services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212. Hence, the orders of the Tribunal were complied with and issued speaking orders. It is further stated that the petitioner has filed CA No.447/2017 in OA No.2144/2017 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 27.12.2017. it is further stated that as per the speaking orders issued by the respondents, the father of the petitioner is not eligible for regularization of services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 and the petitioner is also not eligible for compassionate appointment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.118 dated 18.8.1999. Hence, he is not entitled to claim any relief in this petition. 4. Reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner while reiterating the grounds urged in the petition contended that the petitioner’s father was appointed as NMR (Sweeper) in Dowleswaram Gram Panchayat on 1.4.1985 and appointed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings in Rc.No.6850/85- A3, dated 10.7.1985, but as per rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 7.1.1983 and Section 36 of Provincialized Act, 1964, the appointment/upgradation has to be issued by the Government but appointed by the DPO, hence the petitioner is not eligible for regularization. However, a reading of Para- 1 of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 25.11.1993, which was issued to regularize the services of NMR/Daily wage workers, who were appointed as NMRs/Daily wage/ Temporary basis without any procedure, without being posts or without following roster points on need basis and continued for a period of more than 5 years are entitled as per the scheme following the Hon’ble Supreme Court order. Therefore, the respondents cannot deny the petitioner claim for appointment on compassionate grounds on the allegation of appointment made by DPO and not worked against the sanctioned post etc., are not tenable as per the scheme framed under G.O.Ms.No.212. further stated that the petitioner’s father age is only 16 years at the time of appointment as NMR on 1.4.1981 and not completed 18 years is also not correct as the petitioner’s father appointed on 1.4.1985 but not 1.4.1981. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 6. There is no dispute that the petitioner is the son of the deceased Government Employee. The family member Certificate dated 06.06.2016 and No Property Certificate dated 15.06.2016 from other family members and the representation of the petitioner’s mother dated 14.12.2016, which is filed along with material paper at Page No.25 reveals that there is no earning member except my son i.e., the petitioner herein and he studied 9th class and she is living with his son and hence she requested to give appointment to her son on compassionate grounds. 7. This Court observed that as per G.O.Ms.No.118 Finance & Planning (Fin.Wing.P.C.III) Department, dated 18.08.1999, it was clearly mentioned that al the departments of secretariat/ Heads of departments are requested to process the cases of compassionate appointment to the dependents of deceased Daily Wage or NMR or Consolidated pay person or Contingent worker on full time basis or part time worker in pursuance or above scheme and obtain the clearance of the Government in Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Department before orders are issued for such appointment. 8. 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. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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.” 11. 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.” 12. In view of the foregoing reasons and in view of the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court referred to above, this Court is of the considered view that, declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the claim of the petitioner, though he is entitled for consideration of compassionate appointment in the light of G.O.Ms.No.118, dated 18.8.1999, issuing the impugned proceedings as illegal and liable to be set aside. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.74616/2017-A9, dated 510.2017 issued by the respondents. Further, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in view of the representations 22.11.2016 and 14.12.2016 pertaining to the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as per G.O.Ms.No.118, dated 18.8.1999 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 a copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.