Very recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Canara bank v. Aiithkurrror G.K

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI C.SAI REDDY Counsel for the Res pondents : SMT V.UMA DEVI (SC FOR HC 'l AP) The Court made tfre following ORDER THE HON 'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND THE HON 'BLE SRI JUSTTCE NARSIN GRAONAND IKONDA WRJT PETITTON No.6276 oF 2017 ORDER: G)er Hoft'ble Si Jushce P Sa'm Koshl1) Heard Mr.C.Sai Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.UmaDevi,Iearned.StandingCounselfortheHighCourtof Telangana, appearing for respondent' Perused the material available on record. 2. The present is a writ petition seeking for compassionate appointment under the respondent institution' 3. The facts leading to the hling of the present writ petition is that the mother of petitioner was working as office subordinate under the 1"t respondent who died on harness on 72'03'2010' The petitioner immediately made an application dated 28'03'2010' Howe"tr' ih" petitioner at that point of time did not have the required documents ald therefore vide oflice memo dated 13'06'2010' the petitioner was directed to produce certain documents in support of his claim for compassionate appointment' The petitioner meanwhile got those documents prepared and finally submitted his application which was subjected to scrutiny by the 1"t respondent' In the course of the scrutiny, the appointing authority found that it is not a case where the petitioner either was in any sort of financial distress nor was he in a state of pr r-r ur._\ enabling him to be considert d for. compassionate appointmer't, I: the course of scrutiny, the auth.orit.y fc und that there was strong ll.i' rr:ial position along with certain imrnoveble properties standing in t-hr. rLame of the applicant. In additi,n, it ., rzas also found that he was; rainfully employed abroad ir Dube i during the intervening p,:_'r.irr,1. Hence, the claim for compassionat: appointment was rejectec[ 11 is this rejection which has lear:l t. th e filing of the present writ ;:,et it ion. 4. Upon :[L,rr: r:onsideration of the materials thzrt I as been filed along with vzr.it ,:tition, we do not find any coglent/sttong materials made availabl.e t,v the petitioner to show thr: findir rg of the 1"r respondent t:r krt' 11g611.ct so far as financial stat-.r s c,f the petitioner is concerned anrj : L so in respect of the fact th,,rt he vas gainfully employerl abr.o,ar- . 5. So far as tl'Lr, 6l2jp for compassionate appoiritm,:n: t is by now a well settled pr,:p rsition of iaw that the same has ,ot tc, te treated as another alternr:Ltr: source of recruitment, but is on.J, a parl of a welfare measure undert,:rlien by the employer to tide arva5, th e immediate financial crisr:rs tr''. rt he famly faces on the death .f the rrread winner in the family.

6.InthecaseofManojKurrrara.GouernmentorNCTofDelhi crfld othersL, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the matriculation certificate is a strong material to prove the date of birth' 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court again in case of Registtar General' High Court of Mcrdras as. M'Manickatn and others2' dealing with the same issue has held as under: "30. There must be strong, cogent and reliable evidence in support of the contention that the date of birth entered in the service records or in the S.S.L.C certificate was wrongly entered by a mistake."

8. Very recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Canara bank V. Aiithkurrror G.K.3, in paragraph Nos'27' 29 and 43 has held as under:

27. Lapse of time could, however, be a major factor for denying compassionate appointment lodged belatedly' A where the claim is presumption is legitimately drawn in cases of claims lodged belatedly that the family of the deceased/incapacitated employee is not in immediate need of financial assistance' However' what would be a reasonable time would largely ' (zoro) tt scc zoz. ' zorr(g) scc zss. I civil Appeal No.255 of 2025. I tr: by' tne -eal depenr on the policy/scheme for conrpassio eate apJroirr,-nent under consideration. If an1- tirne imit hasr b,:,r'-r prescribed for making an appJication and tht: ,::li rnant applies within such peric,d. Japs e of trrrL: c,.r r not be assigned as a ground for. rejecti rn. 29 'Ih: second sub-issue pertains sought to be achieved obj :'r :tr i,: offr--; ing conrlra i lronate appointment. We have I,.,rtioecl the ob,ir:r:ti,,. : s of the scheme of 1993 ancl cc,nst -ue such o I j :ctives as salutary for deciding ien-\r cliJm ,:orr p assionate appointment. The r rnderly ng lrel rnd compassionate appointment in dea _h, in-har-nrss cases appears to be that the preroatrLre and rrr: r ;rpected passing away of the e mploy :e, who rv;:t; the only bread earner for the lamjty, learr,ls; ite family members in such penuriors concli iior that but for an appoint;rier: t )n comjti.],s:;(Inate ground, they may not st rvir e. 'Ihere c:r.rnot be a straitjacket formula epplicatle unifci::rnrl to ail cases of employees ,lying_i. r_ harn-",s,s r,rhich wouid warrant appoint,ttent ( n comFasst,)nate grounds. Each case has its ow n pecu,ia:r f :atures a-rrd is required to be d(ralt with beari n l; ; I mind the financial conditior.L o. t h e famil;,u. It i; only in ..hand_to_mouth,, case,r; tiral. r claim li:r' :tmpassionate appointment ouglrt r.o b: consirlr:rr r. and granted, if at all other condi.:ion; are siil is ji _,C. Such ..hand_to_mouth,, cases woulr I / Page 5 of8 include cases where the family of the deceased is lcelow poverty line' and struggling to pay basic expenses such as food, rent, utilities, etc., arising out of lack of any steady source of sustenance. This has to be distinguished from a mere fall in standard of life arising out of the death of the bread earner.

43. In our considered view, the objectives of the scheme of 1993 and the requirements of disclosure relating to financial condition and the details of liabilities of the deceased employee in the prescribed formats (Annexures I and II, respectively) would leave none il doubt about the intention of the policy makers. Overcoming the immediate financial difficulties on account of sudden stoppage of the main source of income and existence of indigent circumstances necessitating employment to one of the dependants being at the heart of the scheme of 1993, it is diffrcult, if not impossible, to accept it as a valid proposition of iaw that grant of terminal benefits cannot be of any consequence since paragraph 3.2 of the scheme of 1993 permits the offer of appointment to be kept open till such time the surviving minor dependant, who is to be offered appointment, attains maj ority. To our mind, what paragraph 3'2 postulates is that, despite there being indigent circumstances necessitating appointment, the oblr:cl of compassionate appointment the reunder sl or.rl i not be frustrated for mere absent:e c f an e1l51iblr dependant family member. The cfft:r ,r,culci be I<e:1. t open for such minor to attalr-r r:ia-ic rity, rvlre rr:; lter he would be offered a ppoinl.r rent subjer r to suitability, and once he i.rccepts the appoir)_nent, he would be under an otriigation to 1or,l. ,rf .er the other indigent family meml ers. Al1hcr.r1Jrt paragraph 3.2 may not be wholly in :;ync wit..: t lLe objective of overcoming rm mec iate fin:Lnc:i;rl difhculties, it has to be seerl a s a be:r r: vo e rnt clause extending the benefit of cornpa: srionate appointment even be y ond reas()l; l;le limits, obviously to cover r:x*:ptional car,r:is, or ensuring the right of :.re fiu nrly mern br. -r; of the deceased employee t, r li.,re .r rith hu:lalr rlignity. The idea for incorporal ion of his c1a'-Lse rrr the scheme of 1993 cannot bc cc,nfused rvit rr 51;-:int/release of terminal bene ,fits E oth in different arena and, therefore. we op€r.rt(, res:,r:,cl f 1.11y disagree with the rea,jonlng in paratqrir th 19 of Canara Bank (supra).

9. There is ', r 1 another reason what compell; teis. Court in not entertaining tl-rir rrrit petition at this juncture is tha, of the petitioner having show:. hrs age to be 34 years in the year .2011 trrd if we go by the said docrrrn.rL which is annexure p-6, the pr,:titi,ne. today would be around 4 !i .4,) years of age which is crossinl:, al th : permissible limits of relaxation for grant of appointment in any Government employment. For this reason also, we are reluctant to entertain the instant writ petition.

10. Thus, the instant deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/- K.SREERAMA MURTHY TANT REGISTRAR -7 //TRUE COPY// \F [,J AFI Advoca SECTION OFFICER te [OPUC] . One CC to SRI C.SAI REDDY, Advocate [OP . one cc to slr/T v.UMA DEVI (sc FoR HC T . Two CD Copies I To 1 2 3 SA GJP- Ft- 7?1)R il-iE s t4 t I tuL ?trh d''f' ';I 'ir l.l.:' * /,, .. /'.i (_) :;e\i \ J HIGH COIJIIT DATED:1210212025 ORDER WP.No.627li of 2017 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT C;OSTS. 5c-ePq"i) \1'- , qrb\a'