The High Court · 2025

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI SRINIVAS EMANI The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUI\[ \R SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIT'Df'] I WRIT APPEAL No.814 of 2025 JUDGMENT: This Writ Appeal assails the Order, dated 10.04.2025 passed by thr: Iearned Single Judge in W.P.No. 1()'.' 4 of 2014, whcreby the Writ Petition hled by respondent No. hercin was allos,ed, directing thc appellants herein to providt' mploym<:rlt to the pctitioncr on compassionate grounds.

2. Hcard Sri G.Vidya Sagar, lcarncd Scnt r (lounsel appearing on behall'of Smt. K.Udaya Sri, learned t r, .nst'l [or rlre appellants; Sri Srinivas Emani, Iearned counsel li 1 respondr:nt No.I and perused the record. Factual lY!at!r:!2< jln br!q[)

3. The factual background, necessary for adjud r alion of this appeal, is as follo'*,s: i) Respondent No. I herein/rvrit petitioner (r :reafter tl'rc pctitioncr") claims to have applied lor c npassionate crnployment vvithin one year of her husbarLr ; dcath on O'2.O4.2O11, rrs required by the governing sr' Leme under (i.O Ms.No.687. l \-= - ii) It is the case of the appellant Universi[v that the I petitioner's hrst valid application was received on 2O.03.20i3, beyond the one-year limit, which was dulv rejected by a speaking order datcd 31.05.20 14. The pctitioner's subsequent claims of having applied eariier on 15.08.20 I 1 and 2O.O9.20l l is an afterthought. FurLhcr, lhe forcnsic examinatron of the dispatch register reveals that the said entries were subsequently interpolated, thereby dernonstr-ating that thc petitroncr,s claim is a fabricated attempt to create a lalse factu:r I founclation_ iii) It is the case of the petitioncr thai she submitted her application through the propcr channel i.e., the Senior Scientisl & Head, JVRHRS, Mall.ala on 20.O9.2Ol l , \.. ithin six months o[ her husband's deatl-r. 1'hc dclal of ovcr thr-ce yea;s i11 forwarding this application to thc Hcad Offir:c u,as thc fauit of the authorities, for ri'hich shc should not bc penalized. The petitioner claims that hcr stand is supporred b1' a subsequent letter from the Univcrsity dated O5. l'2.2O2O, which corroborates her claim. iv) The learned Single Judge r,vhilc allou,ing thc Writ Petition held that the dclay of morc than three years in forwarding the petitioner's application was entirely attributable to the respondents and could not be a ground to deny her claim; that the petitioner could not be penalizcC lor thc administrative lapse committed b1, the authorities in processing her J application; that the University's subsequent co r munication dated 05.1,2.2O2O corroborated the petitioner'r assertion regarding [imch, submission of her applicatior; that the pctitione r hzrd indeed submitted her applicatior r u,ithin the pres<'ribcd pc ri,rd

4. 'l'hc learned counsel for the appellants raised he following conte n tlo r-ls +.i 1'hat the vcry object of the scheme of co npassionate :rppoinlnrcnt is to provide immediate rcliel fo a lamily in surtde r crisis. An application made Lu,o ]'( i rs alter the deirth of tl'rc employee on 20.03.20 13, comp I t.ell delcats thrs ob.jcct and is time-barrcd as pcr the cxl I cit one yltar limit rrndcr the G.O.Ms.No.687, which .()verns the sch emr'.

1.2 'l'hat the alleged application dated 20 r 9.2O11 rvas set up k)r tl'rc hrst time in the reply affidavir rnd Ilnds no mention in the original Writ Petition. [t is z sserred that the sairl document is fabricated, as the dis I rtch rcgister contains an interpolated entry at S.No.I (,( -A and the enrlorst';nent on the alleged application be .. -s a dat<: of

20.O9.2O14, not 2011, indicating it was crea., (i latcr. 4.3 Tirat both the Writ Petition and the pe t tionr:r,s lirst afiidavit rcfer only to the represcntrr ions dated I 1

15.08.2011 and ir-r the year 2Oj.2, and there is no mentron whatsoever of any application dated 2O.O9.2O l 1, and failure to mention the crucial 20.Og.2Ol1 application initially is fatal to her case. 4.4 That the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Stote of West Bengal a. Debabrata Tiu.taril, has held that directing compassionate appointment aftcr the lapsc of a long period defeats the very object of the scheme_ ln the present matter, nearly lourteen years have passcd since Lhe employee's deatl-r in 20 1 1, and even on the petitioner,s own shou,ing, more than eleven \rears have elapsed since the purported application ir-r 20 13. Thus, any financial crisis the family may have faced has long since dissipated, and therefore no claim for compassionate appolntment can survlve

4.5 That the petitioner did not challenge the rejection order dated 31.O5.2014 until by a belated amcndment in

2023. This demonstrates acquiescence and a lack of a timely, valid cause of action.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the rcspondcnts defended the impugned order of the learncd Single .Judge, conLending that it does not suffer frorn any in[-rrmit1, either in '2021 scc online sc 219 ) law or on facts. lt rs submittecl that the learned S I gle Judge has rightly apprcciated the material on record and E pplied the prrncrplcs, and therefore, the order rf Iearned settled legal Single.Judge \\'arrants no interlerence in this appeal'

6. We have Lirken tlote of the respectlve contentio. s urged Analvsis and Reasons: 7. After a thorough consideration of the piez Cings' the impugnc<l order o f the lcarned Single Judg: and the submissiotls zrdvatlccd, we find substantial lc I :e in the contentions raised bt the appellanls ln the preser-rt case, the employee died on )2'O4 '2011 8. and, even assuming the respondent's version to b( lorrect' the purported application is said to have been made on 10'09 20 I 1' The impugnccl direction for compassionate i1 )pointment' however, has trcen rssued only on lO 'O4 '2025' A lirection for ath of the appointment Ircarly fburteen years after the rl' employce, attcl Lnore Lhan a decade after the proceedings, cleleats the very object and ratirl compassionate uppointment scheme The'sudder informs Lhe vtrrv basis of the scheme is inherenL and cannot bc stretched into a continuing clairl Debdbr(utd Tiutari,s case (supra r)lgTanting cc mparssionate rale of the nitiation of crisis'that ), temporary As 1.reld in 6 \:= - apporntment after such an inordinate delay treats rt as a mattcr of inheritance, which it is never intended to be, as the sense of immediate relief stands irretrievably lost. 9 The Apex Court in Deba.brata Tiwo.ri,s case (supra 1), rvhile reiterating the view expressed tn Mataga State of Orissc2 has observed, as to in authoriLies must consider and decide which manr-rer the Nanda Shettg u. applications for appolntment on compassionate grounds, as under: t as Per I assistqnce I b nds a.s e4

14. Before parttng with the present orcler, ute are constrairLed to obserue that consideing the object arLtl pu?tose of apporntnrcnt on compossLonote grounds i.e. a family of a deceasecl emplogee rnag be placed in a positron of fi nanciaL hardship uport the urtltntely deeth oI the emplogee uthile in seruice qnd the basis or oolicu rs tnunedtacu itt rendennqo f financia o tlrc tarniLq of the deceosed, consequent uponh ts untimelu death. the authoities ntust consider and dead e such apolicotions for oppoint ment on stotlate the policu oreualent, ctt t earliesl, bt.Lt not beuond q eiod o sr-x monflr-s rotn t date o submlssion of such comp Ieted appLications 16 be cLchteued then it is iust and necessaru Ihat such apohcclttons are considered weLl tn time and not rn o tardULU We haue come across cases uthere for nearlg two decaclbs the controuersll regarding the application made for compassionate appoLntntent is nf,t resoh,ecl. This consequentlg leads to the frustretion oJ the uery policA of granttng compassionate appointment on the dectth of the enploAee whtle in seruice. We haue, therefore, directed that such applications must be considered at an earliest point of time. l-he constderatton must be fair, reasonable and based_ on releuant consideration. The application cannot be rejected on the besis of fivolous and Jor reo.sons extraneous to the facts of the case. Then and then onlg the object and putpose of appointment on compassionate grourtd.s c..n be ctchieued. lictes or t.he -s ha tl ol (Ernphctsis supplted) A itt 2021 SC 2836 1 1O. lt is settlecl lau' that compassionate app ) neither a vestt-'d righr nor an alternative mod: employment; it constitutes a narrowly carved excep ntment 1s of public tion to the consti[utional guarantecs of equality enshrined in and 16 of t}'rr: Constitution, justilied only by t hnancial distress belalling a tamily upon the demi';' A,rticles 14 re sudden of its sole breadwinner. lts limitcd object is to provide immec i rte relief to enable the famill' lo ove rcome lhe abrupt financia I operative recluircmc-nt ol rhe scheme is' therclt crisis. The re, one of immediacl'. tt is pcrtinent to notc that the learned Srr gle Judge's 11. reliance on the plrrportcd application dated 20.0' t 2O11 is a gra\re error, for the follou'ing reasons: i. F'irstly, the original Writ Petition and the ac afhdavit tllccl in 20 14 did not make a - n,hertsocr er to such an application; it is intro J ftrst time onlv in a reply aftidavit filed much suggesting an al[erthought devised to cure '' in the resPondcn t's case ii. Secondly, the :rppellants have produced pages of the Dispatch Register of JVRHRS, lv reveal an interpolation betrveen Serial Nos l through rhc inscrtion of 'S'No' 10O-A' pertaining lo Lhe rcspondent-petitioner's ap: contemporaneous entries do not contai: dispatch, [hcreb\ indicating an attempt to c trail of ollictai mo\iement. lompanylng 7 reference rced for lhe ater, clearly latal .lacuna he relevant alyal, which )0 and 101, purportedly ication. The any such 'eate a false 8 \--- -I 'lhirdly, the endorsement on lhe bottom of the alleged application, though dated 20.O9 .2O11 , bears rhe signature dated 20.09.2014, which clearly demonstrates that the documen t, in its present form, n as either created or altered in 2014 ancl not on the date it purports to bear. These discrepancies, when viewed collectively, undermine the very foundation of the respondent_writ petitioner,s claim ancl disclose a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court.

12. It is to be noted that in the light of the overu,helming indicatcrs of fabricaLion, the learned Singie .Judge rvas not justitiecl in placing reliance on the impugned document. Thc communication datecl OS.12.2O2O, being an .rternal correspondence unsupported by any contemporaneous file or underlying material, cannot revive a claim that rests upon a document whose authenticity remains qur:stionable. The contemporaneous entries in the Dispatch Register, u,hich form part of thc official record, must necessarily prevail over a self serving letler issued nearly a decade thereafter.

13. [t is also to be notecl that the only application that finds legitimatc ancl consistent reflection in Lhe records of the University is the one received on 2O.O3.2O13. This application was ex fctcie beyond the one year period prescribed under the scheme, and the appellant-Univcrsity rightly rejec[ecl it b_v a reasoned order dated 31 .OS_2O 14. Significantly, the petitioner 9 did not assail this rejection order in the original \\ rit Petition' which is a material omission. The belated attempt .r amend the prayer in 2023 cannot cure the foundational defect lf the claim being time-barred.

14. Fur[her, this CourL is of the considered opr I on that the learned Single Judge did not correctly apply the pr nciples laid down in Debq.bratq Tiuart's case (supra 1)' The 1': rrned Single Judge's observirlion that thc authoritics ought to h I ,e examined the retired oftlcial who signcd rhe 2O20 comnt rnication is misconceived, as the burden of proof rested upon : re petitioner to establish the foundalional lact that she had st bmitted her application u'ithin thc prcscribed time, whicl discharged. On the contrar]', the very document r: \\.'as never ied upon by her stands tainted with serious doubt. [n such cir rumstances, no adverse inlerence could have been drawn against the authorities for not examining the retired officia1. Conclusion: 15. For the foregoing reasons and in the light of he aforesaid discussion, r've are of the considercd opinion that: ( i. The re sponcient-r'rit petitioner has failed to ( stablish that she submitted an)' application for c< mpassionate appointrncnl r'vitl'rin one 1'c:rr of her husbar d's death in 201r. t0 \ **I - 1l The documcnr purportedly bearing the date 2O.09.2O11 is unreliable and exhibits clear indications of fabrication. llI The only authenticated application is the one received by thc University on 20.O3.2O 13, which u,as indisputably bcyond the prescribed period and was, thercfore, rightl_v rejccted. 1V A direction to grant compassionate appointmen t in 2025, in respect of a death that occurred in 20 I 1, runs contrary to thc r.cn olrject of the schcme and to the larv cnunciatcd by the I-{on'ble Supreme Court in Debabrata Tiutari,s case (supr:.r I ).

16. Accordinglr , the Writ Appeal is allowed and the rmpugned order dated 1O.O4.2025 passed by the learned Singlc Judge rn W-P.No. 19214 of 2O 14 is set aside. Therc shall be no order as to costs As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closcd //TRUE COPY// SD/.K.SAILESHI JOINT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Senior Scientist and Head, J V R H R S, Malyala, Mahabubabad Mandal Mahabubababd District 506 101

2. The Registrar, Sri Konda Laxman Telangana State Horticultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad.

3. The Registrar, Dr Y S R Horticultural University, Administrative . Venkataiamannagudem, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District-534'1 0 1 . Office,

4. One CC to SIMT K.UDAYA SRl, Advocate IOPUC] 5. One CC to SRI SRINIVAS EMANI, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 6 BSR LS I I 2 g tillJ 2025 .1, .. - .: . '.\-:-r:.\' '. j,r"' . ,.j,..r,. .*-." -_-L'_ HIGH COURT DATED: 2111112025 1i JUDGMENT WA.No.814 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL, WITHOUT COSTS ,l \ \