Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1468 (AP)

P. Sai Siva Karthik v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-10-18

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2024
ORDER : K. Manmadha Rao, J. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:- “…to issue a writ order or orders especially in the form of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent authorities especially the 4th Respondent in refusing to grant the Compassionate appointment to the Petitioner who is the adopted son of a Government employee and who died while in duty as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondent authorities to appoint the Petitioner in suitable post keeping with his Educational qualifications in mind while making it clear that the condition mentioned in GO Ms No 612 cannot come with the way of Petitioner in getting Compassionate appointment and pass such other order or orders…….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner’s biological parents are Sai Ramesh Babu and Padmalatha. The younger brother of his father Satish Babu did not marry. In the year 2003, on the advice of elders, the petitioner was given in adoption to his paternal uncle Satish Babu. All the formalities of adoption were conducted as per the traditional riots and customs. Therefore, this adoption took place on 09.05.2003. When the adoption took place then the petitioner was minor, hence, this adoption deed was registered on 14.03.2017. In the year 2019, the petitioner’s adopted father passed away. He was still in service. As the adopted son, the petitioner is eligible for the benefits of payment of monies and compassionate appointment. When the petitioner made a request for the retirement benefits and Compassionate appointment, he was advised by his colleagues and officers of the Office of Respondent Nos.3 and 5 to get declaration, the petitioner filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.131.2019 for the declaration of legal heir etc. After pronouncement of judgment, the petitioner submitted the application for Compassionate appointment as well as the retirement benefits. Accordingly, all the retirement benefits like Gratuity, Commutation of pension etc., were paid to me. It is stated that, the 5th Respondent sent a communication to the 3rd Respondent on 04.05.2020 stating clearly that the petitioner is the adopted son of P. Satish Babu and adoption deed was also registered on 14.03.2017. An enquiry of the registered document from the records of concerned registrar and actual relationship of deceased P. Satish Babu was ordered to establish the genuinity. An enquiry of the registered document from the records of concerned registrar and actual relationship of deceased P. Satish Babu was ordered to establish the genuinity. Basing on the report of the enquiry committee, the 5th Respondent addressed a letter to the 4th Respondent clearly stating that during the enquiry, the deed was found to be genuine and it was clearly stated that the suitable job under Compassionate appointment may be given to the petitioner. But, utter shock and surprise, the petitioner received orders from the 4th respondent that he is not eligible for provision of compassionate appointment as the adoption was not taken place as per the stipulated period mentioned in the G.O.Ms.No.612 dated 30.10.1991. Questioning the same, the present writ petition came to be filed. 3. The Counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent. While denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that, the suit which was filed by the petitioner be and the same was decreed by declaring the plaintiff as legal heir of the deceased Panuganti Satheesh Babu. The defendants do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.3,483/- towards the cost of suit. This clearly shows the game played by Mr. P. Sai Siva Karthik to get the case disposed of by exparte (decreed) not producing his parents before the Judge as defendants. Basing on the Court Orders, he obtained, Family member Certificate, no earning member certificate, no property certificate, Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate & Certificate of residence from Tahsildar, Gudur and produced the same to this office for pay of dues due to his deceased father P. Satheesh Babu and also provide Job on compassionate grounds. All the certificates produced by him along with the copy of registered document of adoption agreement vide document No.BK-4,CS No.08/2017 dated 14-03-2017 of Joint Sub-Registrar, Gudur was sent to the Superintendent of Police, SPSR Nellore District for enquiry and genuineness of the Certificates vide this Office Lr.C.No.29/A1/2020 dated.04-05-2020. The Superintendent of Police. SPSR., Nellore got verified the genuineness of the certificates through the Special Branch Officers and informed to this office through his letter C.No.499/VR-SB/NLR/2020(State Govt.), dated.03-06-2020 and all the certificates found genuineness. Regarding adoption of petitioner, on enquiry it was revealed that the deceased HC 481 P. Satheesh Babu is an unmarried and he decided to adopt his brothers younger son Mr. Regarding adoption of petitioner, on enquiry it was revealed that the deceased HC 481 P. Satheesh Babu is an unmarried and he decided to adopt his brothers younger son Mr. P. Sai Siva Karthik with the consent of original parents, Mr.P. Sai Siva Karthik was adopted by Sri P. Satheesh Babu on 09-05-2003 through agreement. At that time they have not registered the adoption agreement. The adoption agreement of Mr. P. Sai Sival Karthik by Panuganti Satish Babu was registered vide document No.08/2017 on 14-03-2017 in Joint Sub-Registrar Office, Gudur. On verification from the Joint Sub-Registrar Office, Gudur it is found the adoption registered deed is genuine one. During the enquiry of Sri P. Sai Ramesh Babu and his wife Smt. P. Padmalatha have stated that their son Mr. Panuganti Sai Siva Karthik (Petitioner) was given adoption to Sri P. Satheesh Babu (younger brother of P. Sai Ramesh Babu) and the adoption was got registered in the office of Joint Sub-Registrar, Gudur on 14-03-2017. Basing on the enquiry by the Superintendent of Police., SPSR., Nellore District it was revealed that Mr.Panuganti Sai Siva Karthik is adopted son of Sri Panduganti Satheesh Babu, Late HC 481 is 14-03-2017 vide Document No.8/2017 dated.14.03.2017 in the office of Joint Sub-Registrar, Gudur. It is further stated that, on receipt of the enquiry report from the Superintendent of Police., SPSR., Nellore, Collector and District Magistrate, Nellore was addressed by sending all the particulars in respect of Mr. P. Sai Siva Karthik requesting to consider in providing job to him on compassionate grounds. The Collector & District Magistrate, Nellore returned the proposal of Mr. P. Sai Siva Karthik stating that Mr. Sai Siva Karthik is not eligible for provision of compassionate appointment as per the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.612 General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated.30-10-1991. As per the above orders the adopted son or daughter of the deceased Government Servant may be at least five years prior to the date of demise of the Government Servant. The adoption of the petitioner Mr. P. Sai Siva Karthik by the deceased was taken on 14-03-2017 just before one year 10 months of the date of death of the deceased (31-01-2019). Therefore, there are no grounds to entertain this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. The adoption of the petitioner Mr. P. Sai Siva Karthik by the deceased was taken on 14-03-2017 just before one year 10 months of the date of death of the deceased (31-01-2019). Therefore, there are no grounds to entertain this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard Sri K.S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P. Sreevyas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned Senior counsel while reiterating the averments made in the petition, contended that, though an enquiry was conducted and basing on the enquiry report of the enquiry committee, the 5th respondent addressed a letter to the 4th respondent stating that the registered deed was found to be genuine and that the suitable job under compassionate appointment may be given, but the 4th respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner which is highly illegal and arbitrary. He further submits that the 4th respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioner only on the ground that, in the GO Ms. No.612, it is quoted, that “the adoption must be precede 5' years from the date of the demise of the Government servant”. Learned Senior counsel submits that the petitioner’s father passed away in 2019 and adoption took place in 2003 and registered deed was executed in 2017 as abundant action. It cannot be said that adoption took place in 2017. The fact is that in 2003, when the petitioner was a minor, he was given adoption. Thereafter, when the petitioner became Major, the adoption was registered in 2017. The very concept of 5' years limitation is arbitrary and causing hardship to the petitioner. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel submits that, without any application of mind and fixation of time is irrational and violative of Article 14 & 21 of Constitution of India. Therefore, the order of the District Collector, suffers from non-application of mind and wrong application of the relevant Government order. As per G.O., it simply says that the adoption should have taken place prior to 5' years of the death of the Government employee for consideration of Compassionate appointment. The correspondence right from 2019 and orders of the Court show that the adoption took place in 2003 whereas, it was formerly registered in 2017 which cannot be put against the petitioner now. The correspondence right from 2019 and orders of the Court show that the adoption took place in 2003 whereas, it was formerly registered in 2017 which cannot be put against the petitioner now. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders by setting aside impugned order of the 4th respondent. 6. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader also while reiterating the averments made in the counter, submits that, on verification from the Service Register of deceased HC 481 P. Satheesh Babu maintained in 5th respondent office, no entry was made in the Service Register regarding adopting Mr. P. Sai Siva Karthik. Hence the action of 4th respondent rejecting the proposal for consideration of Compassionate appointment of the petitioner Mr. P. Sai Siva Karthik is righty correct as the deceased was taken the petitioner for adoption on 14.03.2017 just before one year 10 months of the date of death of the deceased 31.01.2019. He further submits that, as per the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.612 General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated.30.10.1991, the adopted son or daughter of the deceased Government Servant may be considered for appointment, if the adaptation had taken legally, at least five years prior to the date of demise of the Government Servant. Therefore, the present writ petition is devoid of merits and prayed to dismiss the same. 7. On hearing, this Court observed that as per G.O.Ms.No.612, dated 30.10.1991 at Clause(2) (ii) which states that “the adopted son or daughter of the deceased Government servant may be considered for appointment, if the adoption has taken place legally at least 5 years prior to the date of demise of the government servant.” In the present case, the educational certificates will speak that the adopted father’s name is indicated therein and the adoption was taken place which is not registered on 14.03.2017 which is prior to the death of the deceased Government employee which reveals that there is no malafide or vindictive intention on the part of the petitioners in executing the adoption deed. Further, this Court observed that the mere non-registering the adoption deed cannot deny the employment to the petitioner since the adoption should be accorded 5 years prior to the death of the deceased government servant. Further, this Court observed that the mere non-registering the adoption deed cannot deny the employment to the petitioner since the adoption should be accorded 5 years prior to the death of the deceased government servant. It is also observed that though the adoption was executed in the year 2003 but the adoption has taken place many years before as substantiated by the petitioner and it is also observed that the respondent authorities have paid retiral benefits of the deceased to the petitioner by way of giving Demand Drafts, which were filed along with material papers. So, it clearly established that the petitioner is the adopted son of his father. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that, as the petitioner now aged about 33 years and will be over aged for future employment and hence declaring action of the 4th respondent in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, as illegal and liable to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the proceedings in Rc.No.A2/1562/2020, dated 12.08.2020 issued by the 4th respondent. Further, the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner in suitable post keeping with his educational qualifications in mind while making it clear that the condition mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.612 cannot come with the way of petitioner in getting compassionate appointment. This exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. 10. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.