Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 148 (AP)

Palakolanu Kishore v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2025-01-24

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2025
ORDER : This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “….to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioners representation dated 06.07.2022 for compassionate appointment in any suitable post under the compassionate grounds upon death of my deceased father Late P Udaya Sankar while he was in the services of the respondent department as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider and decide the petitioners said representation dated 06.07.2022 and appoint the petitioner in any suitable post and pass …” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s father by name P.Udaya Sankar was an employee of Police Department. He was appointed in the year 1980 as police constable. Later he was promoted as Head Constable. He died on 13-06-2012. While he was in service, his father was dismissed from the service on the ground of misbehaviour towards higher officials. Immediately, the petitioner’s father filed O.A.No. 12509 of 2009 on the file of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad and the said O.A.was dismissed vide its order dated 03-01-2014. During pendency of the said O.A., the petitioner’s father was died on 13-06-2012. Thereafter, the petitioner came on record of O.A. Later, against the order dated 3.1.2014 passed in the said O.A., the petitioner preferred W.P.No.2845 of 2015 before this Court. The said writ petition was allowed setting aside the impugned order vide its order dated 08-02-2021 in respect of punishment was altered as compulsory retirement of her father. The compulsory retirement was with effect from 15-06-2008 and further directed the respondents in the writ petition to release the pensionary benefits to the legal representatives of deceased employee. It is stated that the said order copy was served to the respondent authorities. The pensionary benefits released to the petitioner in some extent. But, some of the benefits and amounts are pending consideration. It is further stated that the petitioner’s father had two children and widowed wife. Petitioner’s mother in a depressed state of mind, even she was not able to come out from the shock of death of his father. The pensionary benefits released to the petitioner in some extent. But, some of the benefits and amounts are pending consideration. It is further stated that the petitioner’s father had two children and widowed wife. Petitioner’s mother in a depressed state of mind, even she was not able to come out from the shock of death of his father. He being a only son to his deceased father looking after the welfare of mother and his sister. Further, the petitioner has no any job to maintain his family. Till passing of order in the earlier writ petition, the petitioner family were faced great hardship. In view of sufferance caused due to death of his father, the petitioner’s mother made a representation dated 06-07-2022 to the respondents with a request to appoint the petitioner in any suitable post in the police department as under compassionate grounds. It is mainly contended that, the police department has issued a notification dated 07.11.2016 inviting applications for driver and the petitioner has applied for the same and selected in physical test. Therefore, the petitioner had a requisite qualification to consider his name as under compassionate grounds in any suitable post in the police department. But the respondents have not taken any action on the representation dated 6.7.2022. Hence the present writ petition. 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the 4 th respondent. While denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that, the father of the petitioner was worked as Armed Reserved Head Constable. While he was working in ARHC, he was involved as an accused in Cr.No.18/2001 under Section 498(A) & 324 IPC of Eluru II Town P.S in which he was acquitted on 28.5.2005 and (2) Cr No.19/2002 under Section 353 & 506 IPC of Eluru II Town PS in which he was convicted and sentenced to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- vie CC No.31/2004 on the file of Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Excise) W.G District, Eluru. It is further stated that, aggrieved with the order of dismissal from service issued by the Superintendent of Police, Eluru, he filed OA No.2289/2005 on the file of APAT, Hyderabad and the said O.A was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner’s father approached this Court by way of filing Crl. It is further stated that, aggrieved with the order of dismissal from service issued by the Superintendent of Police, Eluru, he filed OA No.2289/2005 on the file of APAT, Hyderabad and the said O.A was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner’s father approached this Court by way of filing Crl. Revision No.1779/2007 and this Court vide order dated 10.12.2007 he was reinstated into service vide D.O.No.292/2008 dated 30.04.2008 without prejudice to the Oral Enquiry pending against him vide C.No.31/OE-PR/2002 of Superintendent of Police, Eluru. Accordingly, he reported to duty. As the oral enquiry was proved against him, he was removed from service vide D.O No.542/2008 dated 22.7.2008 of Superintendent of Police, Eluru. Thereafter, he preferred an appeal against the punishment of removal from service and the same was considered and rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eluru Range, Eluru vide proceedings C.No.41/Appeal/2008, Dr.31.10.2008. Challenging the removal order awarded by the Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District, Eluru, the petitioner’s father filed O.A.No.12509/2009 and the appeal petition rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eluru Range, Eluru. While the O.A was pending before the APAT, he died on 13.06.2012 while he was under the punishment of removal of service vide D.O.No.542/2008, dt.22.07.2008 of Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District. Eluru. The wife, daughter and son of the deceased were substituted as legal heirs on his behalf in the said O.A. Subsequently, the APAT, Hyderabad dismissed the above O.A on 03.01.2014 upholding the order of removal from service vide D.O.No.542/2008, dt.22.07.2008 of Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District, Eluru. Subsequently, the wife of the deceased i.e. P. Sree Raja Rathnam, her daughter and son filed W.P.No.2845 of 2015 before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. against the order, dt.03.01.2014 of APAT, Hyderabad in ?.?.??.12509/2009. The said writ petition was partly allowed modifying the punishment of removal from service to that of "Compulsory Retirement w.e.f 17.07.2008. As per the order, dt.08.02.2021 of Hon'ble High Court and instructions of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eluru Range. Eluru vide memo C.No.41/Appeal/2008, Dt.06.03.2021, the punishment of removal from service awarded to Sri P. Uday Sankar, ARHC 512 was modified to that off "Compulsory Retirement w.e.f 17.07.2008' vide D.O.No.211/2021 (C.No.3472/A6/2021), Dt.26.03.2021 of Superintendent of Police, W.G.Dt., Eluru. As per the order, dt.08.02.2021 of Hon'ble High Court and instructions of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eluru Range. Eluru vide memo C.No.41/Appeal/2008, Dt.06.03.2021, the punishment of removal from service awarded to Sri P. Uday Sankar, ARHC 512 was modified to that off "Compulsory Retirement w.e.f 17.07.2008' vide D.O.No.211/2021 (C.No.3472/A6/2021), Dt.26.03.2021 of Superintendent of Police, W.G.Dt., Eluru. The pensionary benefits have been sanctioned accordingly to the wife of the deceased employee vide PPO No.Police/WG/488/FP/2022, dt.28.02.2022 of District Audit Officer, State Audit Office, Eluru, West Godavari District. It is further stated that participation of the petitioner and qualifying in physical tests, is different from the compassionate appointment. In view of the above reasons, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment under compassionate grounds, since the deceased was not died while in service, it is Obviously, he retired from service as per orders of the Hon'ble High Court. 4. Heard Sri Nagapraveen Vankayalapati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the contents made in the petition. Whereas, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, prayed to dismiss the writ petition 6. Perused the material on record. 7. On a perusal of the material on record, it is observed that, admittedly, the petitioner’s father was an employee in police Department. While he was in service, he was involved in criminal cases and during pendency of the criminal cases, the petitioner’s father was awarded punishment of dismissal from service besides treating the suspension period from 20.01.2002 FN to 02.06.2002 AN as Not on Duty vide proceedings dated 9.5.2005. Thereafter, he preferred appeal as well as revision and both were considered and rejected the claim of the petitioner father. Thereafter the petitioner father preferred OA No.2289/2005 before APAT, Hyderabad and the said O.A was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner’s father preferred WP No.1779/2007 and the same was allowed and the petitioner father was reinstated into service. 8. It is also to be noted that, the petitioner father filed OA No.12509/2009 challenging the order or removal from service awarded by the Superintendent of Police, W.G District, Eluru and appeal petition rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police Eluru. 8. It is also to be noted that, the petitioner father filed OA No.12509/2009 challenging the order or removal from service awarded by the Superintendent of Police, W.G District, Eluru and appeal petition rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police Eluru. It is also observed that, while O.A was pending before the APAT, he died on 13.06.2012 while he was under punishment of removal of service. Subsequently, the wife, daughter and son of the deceased were substituted as Legal heirs on behalf of his deceased-father in the said O.A. and the said O.A was also dismissed vide order dated 03.01.2014 upholding the order of removal from service vide D O No.542/2008 dated 22.07.2008 of Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District, Eluru. 9. This Court further observed that, the wife of the deceased, her daughter and son have filed WP No.2845 of 2015 before this Court for releasing of pensionary benefits and the said WP was disposed of modifying the punishment of removal from service to that of “Compulsory Retirement w.e.f. 17.7.2008. in pursuance of the same, pensionary benefits have been sanctioned accordingly to the wife of the deceased employee. Subsequently, the petitioner’s mother had made a representation for appointment of her son on compassionate grounds. But the respondents have not taken any action so far which is illegal and arbitrary. 10. The relevant clauses of the scheme of compassionate appointment in the consolidated instructions issued by the State Government in Circular Memo No.60681/ Ser.A/2003-1, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 12.08.2003 are extracted as hereunder: II. Depending family members means; (a) Spouse. (b) Son/daughter of regular Government employees. (i) x x x x (ii) x x x x (iii) When there is only a married daughter to the deceased government employee without older or the 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. 11. On careful examination of G.O.Ms.No.350, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 30.07.1999 and Circular Memo No.60681/ Ser.A/2003-1, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 12.08.2003, it was mentioned therein that the married daughters also entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds subject to certain conditions. 12. The object of compassionate appointment is a social security measure to support the family of the deceased government servant, who dies in harness. 12. 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. 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 discriminating the daughters, who are being married is appears to be illegal and unjust. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that, legal proceedings pending before the Court. Ultimately ended with modified order by a Division Bench of this Court and therefore the petitioner is entitled to for benefit of death scheme and also entitled to for appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition while declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the representation of the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 6.7.2022 calling for the relevant required documents from the petitioner. On receipt of such documents from the petitioner, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.