The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petit,r:ner : SRI C.HARI PREETH Counsel for the Ree pondents : G.P FOR SERVICES (HOMEI The Coqrt made the lollowing ORDER ,a HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION N0.23386 of 2023 Heard Sri C.HariPreeth, learned counsel appearing On behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services(Home) appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2 era roached th c urt eek n prayer as under: "....to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned Memo No.634- Pl9er.II/A2/2019-2, dt.06.05.2022 issued by the 1't respondent rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds intimating the same through the 3'd respondent in its Memorandum File No.A1-COMP.APPT/172/2022, dt. 09.05.2023 without assigning any reasons as illegal, arbitrary, u nconstitu tion a I and against the principles of natural justice and consequently by setting aside the Impugned Memo No.634-PlSer.I1/A2/2019-2, dt.06.05.2022 and the intimation Memo issued by the 3'd respondent vide File No.Al- COMP.APPT/172/2022, dt.09.05.2023, direct the respondents to forthwith consider the candidature of i l 2 the p|titioner for appointment in any suitable p1)st on con pirssronate grounds on par with the s imilar can(ilr: ates who were considered and appo ntr:d by tle 1't respondent vide Memo Nc:.334- PlSer.II/A2/20I7, dt.t7.O6.2OL7 and tnder C;.O R:. No.411, dt.07.lI.2OI4 in the interrest of Just ce and to pass such other order or order,; as this Hon'bl: Court may deern fit and proper ir the circL n'stances of the case.,,

3. l-he :: tse of the petitioner, in brief, is that the Father of the petitic nilr, who was working as a police Consta tle , died on 08.05..2014 ,lue to ill health while in service. The p:titioner, being a tIi,, orced and unemployed daughter, su rfi.itted an applicatiorr rlated 13.02.2019 for compassionate aopr)intment to the res:r: ndents. Respondent No.2 recommen<je,d her case to Responlcnt No.1 on 07.LL.2020. However, desp,;16, making several reprr:sentations, Respondent No.1 rejected her request througl tlre impugned Memo No. 634_p/Se r.lI/t\2,,20I9_2, dated ,)6. )l:.2022, without assigning any reasc,ns and the same h,ad b(ren intimated to the petitioner by the respondent No.3 he-er n vide its Memorandum File No.Al_ COMP.APPIil 72/2022, dated 09.05.2023. Aggtiev-.d by the same, the r)e:itioner has filed the present writ petiticn. / I I I I 0 3 U E THE ECORD A) The relevant Dortion of the i mouoned orocee dinos Memo No.63 4-PlSer.lIlA2t 20L9-2. o6. 5.2022 issued bv the resDondent N .1-Prin ioal Secretarv to Governm nt to the resoon dent No. -The Dire or General of Police, Telan qa na State, is extracted hereu nder: "The attention of the Director General of police, Telangana, Hyderabad, is Invited to the references cited. He is informed that the request of Smt. N.B. Sunitha, divorced daughter of late Ramaswamy, ARPC 30, Waran qal for Drovi lno aDDorn tment to is not nder com assionate orou nds he exi r a rules.

2. The Director General of police, Telangana, Hyderabad, is requested to intimate the same to the individual under due acknowledgement." e relevant D rtion of the memorandum of the B)T resDon derit No.3-The Comm sioner of Police, Waran qal, vide File No.A1-COMP.A PTlt72l202 dated s S 4 Q9105_.2L?3 issuecl to the oetitioner herein is ,e_XtIagled hereu n de rr "In pursuance of the Govt orders issLterl vide r:fe-er rce 5th cited, the request of Smt N,B.Sunitha, divorc:d daughter of ate RamaSWamy, Atl.Pi.l 30, Wararqal for providing appointment to her under comp;:ssionate grounds is not feasiLrle for cons iclerration as per the existing rules." DISCUSISION AND CO NCLUSION: 4, L.eerr ed counsel appearing on behalf of tire petitioner submits r:hat the petitioner's representation dated ll.02.2olg seekirrg r- ompassionate appointment was rejr,rcted by Responder: No.1 vide proceedings dated 06.05.:202;,1, and the same v/il,; communicated to the petition,tr through proceedirrq,; dated 09.05.2023 of the respondent l,lo 3 without assigning any reasons for rejecting the petitioner's candiclatL rr: for appointment On compassionate g.or.rnds. The learned ccl nsel further contends that the petitionor rs entitled to know tht: reasons as a matter of right as to why p,:)titioner's application dated 13.02.2019, seeking compassionate appointm3r t, was rejected. / / 5

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the fact, as borne on record, that the impugned orders dated 06.05.2022 issued by Respondent No.1 and 09.05.2022 issued by Respondent No.3 do not disclose any reasons. Although the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents attempts to justify the rejection by stating reasons, this Court opines that the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment ought to have been considered in accordance to law by Respondent Nos.1 and 3 on its own merits. The application cannot be summarily rejected without conducting an inquiry into the specific plea raised by the petitioner that she is a divorced and dependent daughter of her aged mother, who is a pensioner.

6. A bare perusal of the impugned orders indicates that they are bereft of reasons, Except for stating that providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner is not feasible for consideration as per the existing rules, no further explanation is provided In the impugned order passed by Respondent No.1 dated 06.05.2022, which was subsequently communicated to 6 the petit oiter through the memo dated 09'05'2023 issued by \ Respond:rt No.3

7. Th s; (lourt opines that the petitioner is en -itlr:d for the relief as r)rayed for in the present writ petition since the impuqned orders had been passed mechanici:lll', without applic:ati rr of mind and without assigning any reasons, in a routine rn i: n ner.

8. The object of compassionate appointfilent is a social :;ecurity measure to support the family of the deceas<:d government servant, who dies in harness' The aim arrcl obiect of the policy for conrpassionate appoint ment is to provide financial support to the family cf the deceased employee, who left the dependents in distress and penury. The corr: erim of the object ol providing compassionate appointmrent is to relieve the family from financial sufferings bering faced for the sudden demise of the Bread Winner of the family. The sufferings being faced by the dependents of the rleceased employee for sudden demise of the Bread Winner r'ould be solved for some extent try providing 7 compassionate appointment to one of the dependents of the deceased employee to look after the family. The said relief should not be denied on the ground that the same is not feasible without assigning any reasons defeating the very object of the compassionate appointment.

9. Few Jud qments of the A ex Court on the ooint of recordinq of re sons. a . The Aoex Court in the iudqment reDorted in f 2OO1) 5 SCC 664 in Tandon Brothers Vs. State of West Benoal & Others at para 34 observed as under: "Governmental action must be based on utmost good faith, belief and ought to be supported with reason on the basis of the State of Law - if the action is otherwise or runs counter to the same the action cannot be ascribed to be malafide and it would be a plain exercise of judicial power to countenance such action and set the same aside for the purpose of equity, good conscience and justice. lustice of the situation demands action clothed with bonafide reason and necessities of the situation in accordance with the law. " b. The Apex Court in the iudqment reoorted in (2010) 9 SCC 496 in Kranti Associates Private Limited & Another v. Masood Ahmed Kh n & Others at pata 47 a observed as under : 8 Summarising the above discussi,trr. :his Court ?arit 17 11c t( {:; , (a) In India the judicial trend has alway; been to recoT( t reason, even in administrative dec,is or,s, if such dec,s t ) n s affect a nyone prej ud icia lly. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record -easons in !.up.,()rt of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to -ce/1. e ihe wider principle of justice that justrce must not r.tnly L;e'done it must also appear to be done as w)ll. (d,) Recording of reasons also operates its a valid test",1 tlt on any * possible arbitrary exercise o,1t,,diciat and qua.;t "ii.tdicial or even administrative power. (e,) Reasons reassure that discretior has been r:xeit';;ed by the decision-maker on relevanl 1rc:unds and tLy c'ts'egarding extraneous considerations. rf) Reasons have virtually become as inoisF,ensable a comDt, nent of a decision-making process as cbserving prin:,lS ies of natural justice by judicial, qua:;i .ju,licial and e\/en lv adm inistrative bodies. by,sul.erior courts. 'g) Reasons facilitate the process of judic,al review 'h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries comn tted to rule of law and constitutional qov( rnance is in Fav,lur of reasoned decisions based on relev.tnt facts. l'his i:; virtually the lifeblood of judicial dectsicn-making jt.tstrrv ng the principle that reason is the soul )t jt stice. ',) )udicial or even quasi-judiciat opinion:: tttese days c,an b,t as different as the judges and auff,or,ties who deltvei them. All these decisions serve ore conlmon purDCsc, which is to demonstrate by reason that the relet'arrl. factors have been objectively consicle rerl. This is ir.np(.t'L)nt for sustaining the litigants' faith in tte justice d,elivety system. jL.tdt(.ia accountability and transparency. (j) Insistence on reason is a requiremt'nt for both i l:) If a judge or a quasi-judicial auth )ri, y is not can0to' enough about his/her decision-making process then it is irtpossible to know whether the perso,,t d<'ciding is faith,1t, to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of irr r:ren l ,: l) Reasons in support of decisions mu:;t btt cogent, cl'=ar a td succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp nta lism. = / - 9 reasons" is not to be equated with a vatid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of iiiiciat powers. Transparency in decision-making not inly ia*es the judges and decision-makers less-prone a irroi but also makes them subject to broader scrutinv. (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision_ making, (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a .role.in setting up precedents for the Tutire. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons, for the decision is of the essence and is virtialty'a part of ,,due process". c The Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of ported in (19s1) v G h n o P lic SCC 1088 observed as under :, "We are clear that the public orders, publicly made, in gxercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the -Offi."i light of explanations subsequently given by if," making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. iublic orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the acting,s and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. d. Former Chief Justice of India, Late Justice y,V. Chandrachud in judgment reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248 in Menaka Gandhi Vs. Union of India held that law cannot permit any exercise of power by an executive to keep the reasons undisclosed if the only motave for doing so is to keep the reasons away from judiciat scrutiny. q l l0 e. Tfte Apex Court in case of S IAuthoritv of ndia Limited V=.;. Sales Tax Officer- Rourketa-I Circlg- AI R2009 Supplemellt SC 561 observed as under : is the heart beat of every conclusron. It introduces 'R€a:,on ,:lalit,, in an order and without the same il becomes ifeies s". 1t, Ir Alexander Machinerv (Dudtev Li Crabtree_r 'e or 974 CR 20 IRC ted) Vs. it was observed rre to give reasons amounts to denial crf justice. ,ns are live links between the min,rl of the on-taker to the controversy in question and the onor conclusion arraved at. Reason$ substitute ty by objectivity. The emphasis on reasons is that if the decision ret,reals th e 'utab le face of the sphinx " it can, by itr; silence, r "Failr Rea sr clecisr clecisr su bie rec()rr "Inscl perte.! pgtrycl the dercision. " g. The Ape.( Court in iudoment reoorted in (2Ol(Dj_SeC 232-b_$re!: d Hall Vs. Howrah (ia n rs at para 4! n rt Na o s h I observed as under : "Re;rsrln is the heart beat of every conclusion, it intrc,drtces clarity in an order and without the same, it bercomes tifetess. Reasons substitute subjectivity by obj,:ctivity, Absence of reasons renders the order t/ u unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum".

10. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the !earned Assistant Government Pleader for Services (Home) appearing on behalf of ine respondents, c) The contents of the Memo No.634- P lSer.tll A2l2OL9-2, dated 06.O5.2022 issued by the respondent No.1 to the respondent No'2 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for the compassionate appointment without assigning any reasons(referred to and extracted above) and, d) The memorandum of the respondent No.2 vide File No.A1-COMP.APPT / L7212O22 dated 09.O5.2023 issued to the petitioner herein (referred to and extracted above), \\ r \ e) 'l-he view and the observations of Apex Court in thr: judgments referred to and extracted above, The iAlrit Petition is allowed and the innpugned ordery'm,=nro issued by the respondent No.1 rricle Memo No.634-f'l Ser.ll/ A2/2019-2, dated O6.O5.202:i: issued by the r,:spondent No.1 to the responclent No.2 rejecting the candidature of the petitiorrer for appointme nt on compassionate grounds without assigningl ;rny reasons and intimating the same to the petitioner through respondent No.3 vide its File No. AI-COMP.APPT/L7212022 dated 09.05.2023 are set aside ancl the matter is remitted back to the respondent Nos.l to 3 herein to re-consider the application of the petitioner rlated 13.02.2019 for providing appointment under corn;rassionate grounds in accordance to, law by providing ltn opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner ;rnd decide the subject issue within ar period of four(4) ,rueeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and duly communicate the decisaon to the petitioner. rlowever, there shalt be no order as to costs. , ,w.: --- in this writ l3 Miscellaneous petitions' if any' pending petition, shall stand closed' i3li,r'^RlH'[t?HIA ,,TRUE COPY" SECTI ,/. I To : i??ffi itri:##:"::.1:-:J;'"'* oft orrtceR " ;-';:::";" r'r'ihe s'ia'ie'r 1 ffifriiiji!'ii:ri,::i'*''. SA BS (/ L C.C. TODAY ..: STA Ic: .4 j+ ,4 0 $ Juii 2s6 L) IP2 a \i .iii ',] -: _:---- HIGH COUR.T DATED:291A4/2025 ORDER WP.No.23386 of 2023 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT CC)STS. ,/o 4-b rzrzr'< /