The High Court · 2025

Petition unrle' rii,:ction 151 CPC praying that in the circun stitnces stated in the affidavit filecl in s upport of the petition, the High Court rn:ly be pleased to suspend the impugrte, j l\,4emo Letter No.A41322212015, dt 22t0712023 of the 3rd respondent and Cire,r:t the respondents to consider the case of he 2nd petitioner for compassionate :rir rointment in any of the suitable post und()r )ompassionate grounds bytaking oarr 4 of the G.O.lvls.No.165, G.A (Ser.A) De:t. dt. 2013/'1989, pending drsposa of th: above writ petition. Counsel for the Peliti rners: SRI C.RAJA SEKHAR REDDY Gounsel for the Rer;p cndents: AGP FOR SERVICES ll The Court made the f,:llowing: ORDER 7 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PET ONN0.24467 ol o23 ORDER: Heard Sri C. Raja Shekar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners, learned Assastant Government Pleader for Services-fl, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. I to 6.

2. The oetition ers aDDroached the Court seekino oraver asu der: "...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order of direction preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and to declare the impugned Memo Letter No.A4/3222/2015 dt 22/07 /2023 of the 3'd respondent wherein rejecting the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment under compassionate grounds without proper application of mind, the said action of the respondents is as highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and without any application of mind and also in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 2l of the Constitution of india declare the same as bad in law and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the 2nd petitioner for compassionate appointment in any of the suitable post under compassionate grounds by taking pa ra 4 of the G.O. Ms. No. 165, G.. A. (Ser.A) Depr dt z\/3/Lgeg and to pass. . . " 2 SN, J \ ,,t, 21 167 2023

3. The ca;e of the petitioners, in brief, is that the hlsband of the petitioner \1o.1 was appointed as Village Revenle Assistant in the yea- 2000 of Dharmaram Village, Pitl,rm Mandal, kamareddv t)il;trict. The husband of petitioner No..L m,,:t with an accident at . arlanathpally Jungle in Bichkunda Marrrlal and died on 16.01.20 .:;. Later, petitioner No.1 submitted a reorr,lsentation to the com letent authority in the month of Oc:otrer, 2015 seeking conp tssionate appointment of petitioner N(,.1 as an Attender. Tle respondent No.3 sent the proposals, ride letter dated 29.10,2()15 to respondent No.2 requesting appointment of petitioner Nc,.l as an Office Subordinate but no actiln has been initiated nn :h: said proposals. In the meantime, the petitioner No.1's son l.e. petitioner No.2 herein has become e'ligible for appointment rrn compassionate grounds. Thereaft(rr petitioner No.l once aga n made a representation dated 23.06 2C20 before the responden: No.4 but no action had been initiatecl. l-hereafter the petitioner to.1 made a request application dated 113.01.2021 before the re:;pondent No.2 and subsequently petitir>ner No.1 made one rrore representation dated 27.06.2022 before respondent \r,3. However, no action had been t;:kr,rn on the above said representations. Aggrieved by the s3me, the j 3 SN, J wP 24467 2023 petitioners filed W.p. No. 10012 of 2023 before this Court and passed final orders dated 13.04.2023 directing the respondents to examine the representation of the petitioners dated LB.Ol.2O2t and 27.06.2022 within a period of B weeks. Thereafter, respondent No.3 passed orders rejecting the case of the petitioner No.1 on the ground that petitioner No.2 was a minor i.e. 12 years 4 months as on the date of the death of his father and he has not attained 18 years of age within 2 years from the date of his father,s death. Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.3, the petitioners approached the Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. PERUS ED TH E RECORD A. The impugned proceedings dated 22,07.2C.21 vide Lr.No.A4l3222/zors of the 3'd respondent herein issued to the petitio.ner rejecting the request of the 1st petitioner for providing compassionate appointment to the 1"t petitioner's son i.e. the 2nd petitioner herein is extracted hereu nder:- "In this regard it is informed that. through the reierence 10th cited above, Smt. p. Vijaya W/o Sudharshan, VRO (Late) has been informed that, her application for compassionate appointment of her elder son Sri p. Tharun 4 SN, J \\ I 14.167 2021 S/o Sudh;rr: tran, VRO (Late) has been rejected due to the reason thit:, her son was minor as on the date of d:alh of the emplc i,t:r:, and he had not attained (18) years of age within (2) ',/:ars from the date of death of his father' a:' per G.O. Ms. l'lo. 165, GA (Ser.A) Dept.' Dt'20'03'1989' H,)vrever, the application has been re-exam'ined and the a pplicant is hereby informed that sri P' Tharun l;/o Sudharshan, VRO (Late) was minor i'e' (12) ye:rrr; (o4) months (as per SSC Date of lSirth o3.o9,20oll) as on the date of death of the employee' and he ha'J not attained (la) years of age within (2) years frorn the date of death of his father' Hence' the request r,f the applicant is not considered for compass.ionate appointment as per G'O' Ms' ltlo' 165' GA (Ser.A' DePt.. D.2O.O3.1949". B. The G.Cr"Ms.No.165, Dated 2O'O3'1989 of General Administration (Services-A) Department, Government of Andhra Fr;tdesh, in particular Para Nos.1 anrd 4 are extracted hereunder: It hi)s been clarified in item 13 in the Gov:rrment "1. Memc first read above that. a minor dependent shoull rot be consicierr:d for a providing employment under-social se:uiity schenre il ; there cannot be any contractual orli(latlon who is a minr r and betweren tf c Government and .employee, can seel,: relief within reasonable time, which may b{l two yeaTs fron the date of demise of the Government s('rrvant and tlre l'ai t should be communicated to Governmen - u '( I 5 SN, J wI 21467 2023

4. The Government, after careful consideration, direct that dependent of a Government employee who dies in harness or retires on medical invalidation grounds, who is minor seeking employment on compassionate ground should apply for appointment only after attaining the age of 1g years subject to the condition stipulated in item 13 in Government Memo first read above, viz., the relief can be asked for within a reasonable time which may be two years from the date of demise of the Government servant but the spouse or the child of the deceased Government servant should immediately apply for this relief,,. C. The operative portion of the order dated L3.O4.2O23 passed in W.P. No. 1OO12 of 2OZ3 is extracted hereunder: "3. In view of the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the Learned Government Pleader, this Writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representations filed by the petitioners on 18.01.2021 and 27.06.2022, within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order". DISCUS ION AND CO NCLUSION:- 5. The learned counsel Submits that the petitioners on an earlier occasion approached this Court by filing W.p. No. 10012 of 2023 which was disposed of on 13.04.2023 directing the respondents thereunder to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 18.01.202I and 27.06.2022 within eight (B) 1 6 SN, J \,'P 21467 2023 weeks from tfrr: date of receipt of a copy of this c:rder and thereafter ttr(: impugned proceedings dated 22.07.,::.023 had been issued h1, 1n" 3'd respondent to the petitloners herein rejecting lhe 1" petitioner's request for providing crlrn Fra ssionate appointment tt the 2nd petitioner on the ground th;t the 2nd petitioner was trinor i.e. 12 years 4 months as on ttre: date of the death of l:he l': petitioner's husband, who died on 11i.01.2015 and the 2"'r pel itioner had not attained 18 years of alle within (2) years from l:h,r date of death of his father and th:r,lfore, the request r:f tl <r 1't petitioner could not be cor sirjered for compassionat€r appointment as per G.O.Ms.No,165, GA (Ser.A) Dept., dated i10.03.1989 and in fact para No.4 of tlte said G.O. very clearly :' tipulates that minor can seek emplo','rnsrll 66 compassionatc grounds only after attaining the age ol 1B years and the 2"d pt:titioner herein on completion of 18 )'e.'rs of age had right v aI plied for compassionate appointmenl: \ ide letter dated 26 06,))20 and therefore it cannot be said th,.rt the 2nd petitioner is n rt entitled for compassionate appoint n(:nt as per G.O.Ms.No.16:;, dated 20.03.1989 and. the 2nd petitioner's case for compassior ate appointment should be considerec a:i per para No.4 of the si,, id G.O. and it cannot be unilaterally rerjected on - 7 SN, J wP 24467 2023 the ground that 2nd petitioner was minor 12 years 4 months as on the date oF death oF the l.t petitioner,s late husband i.e. on 16.01.2015 and that the 2nd petitioner had not attained 1B years of .age as on the date of death of his father.

6. The learned Assistant Government pleader for Servlces, appearing on behalf of respondents submits that it is true that the 1st petitioner made an application seeking compassionate appointment for the 1't petitioner soon after the death of her deceased husband in October, 2015 itself but in view of the fact that the 2nd petitioner,s application seeking compassionate appointment on humanitarian grounds was not within two years from the date of death of the deceased employee, the impugned proceedings had been issued in accordance to law as per G.O. Ms.No.165, dated 20.03.1989 and therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned proceedings and the petitioner is not entitred for any relief in the present writ petition.

7. A bare perusal of para No.4 of G.O.Ms.No.165, dated 20.03.1989 clearly indicates that a minor seeking employment on compassionate grounds who applies for appointment only after attaining the age of 1B years is entitled for compassionate 8 SN, J W, 241(17 202i appointment arld in the present case admittedly a'; borne on record the ls lretitioner's late husband died on 16'01"'1015 and the 2nd petiticr (lr soon after completion of his Inte-mediate in March, 20,20 n":de an application on 23'06'2020 which "ryas forwarded by tne Collector & District Magistrate, Kam'rreddy to the Colle,:tor & District Magistrate, Nizamabad r":questing compassional.e appointment to the 2nd petitioner as Village ReVenUe offir:rl- and also requesting the Collector. i:i District Magistrate, t,li;:i:mabad to take necessary action frtr prbviding employment tr: the legal heirs of the deceased Village Revenue Officer. Tht: I't petitioner again renewed her re'lur:st dated 18.01.202 1 1:o t.he 2nd respondent to appoint 1't pet tit:'ner's son in any eligible post in the Department since he harj r:ompleted Intermediate irt the Year 2020.

8. This Crtrlrt opines that the impugned proceedirrg:' rejecting the request r:f the 1't petitioner for providing co'nJrassionate appointment t I the 2nd petitioner is contrary to para No'4 of the G.O.Ms.No. l-ri5, Dated 20.03.1989 and the samr: rs without application cf rrind.-This Court opines that on techric'rl grounds the relief as 6 rayed for by the petitioners cannot lle denied to thepetitionershereinsincethereisnojustific;rtir'lninthe I 9 SN, J wP 2446',1 2023 reasoning given in the impugned memo, dated 22.07.2023 of the 3'd respondent and the same is only intended to deprive the petitioners lawful entitlement as per rules in force.

9. The obiect 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 retieve 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 one of the dependents of the deceased emptoyee to look after the family. The said relief shoutd not be denied on flimsy grounds defiating the very object of the compassionate appointment. l0 SN, J \\\,2146'7 2023

10. Taking-uLtelo-O-5i-dCEli-g-n : (a) Thrl aforesaid facts and circumstance!; of the case, (b) Tlre submissions made by the learned counse! appearing rtn behalf of the petitioners and the learned Assistant Got'ernment Pleader for Services-Il, appearing on behalf ol' resPondents, (c) t'ara Nos.1 and 4 of the G.O.Ms.No.:1165, dated 20.03.1989 cf Government of Andhra Pradesh (referred to and extr;rcted above), (d) 'l-he contents of the impugned pror:eedings dated 22.0,r.202;3 of the 3'd respondent herein, (referred to and extrilcted above), (e) T-he operative portaon of the order of this Court dated 13.04 2023 passed in W.P. No. 1OO1:z ot 2023 (referrecl to ;tnd extracted above), (f) -lhe representation of the 1"t petitioner dated 23,.C,6.2A20 addressed to the 4th respondent lrerein and the recomlnrrndation made in favour of the petitioners herein vidt: Lr.No. A4lg222/2!015, dated 25.06,2O2O to the responde nt No.3 herein, -. l1 SN, J wP 24467 2023 (S) The representation of the l"t petitioner dated

18.01.2021 addressed to the 2nd respondent herein. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings vide Lr.No. A4/3.222/2OL5, dated 22.07.2023 is set aside and the respondents are directed to reconsider the request for compassionate appointment to the 2nd petitioner herein by duly taking into consideration the para No.4 of the G.O.Ms.No.165, dated 2O.03.1989, the 1't petitioner,s representation dated 18.01.2021 addressed to the 2nd respondent herein, the petitioners' representation dated 23.06.2c.2(0 addressed to the 4th respondent herein, the recommendation made in favour of the petationer herein dated 25.06.2020 by the respondent No.4 to the respondent No.3, and atso the earlier observations made by this Court in W.p. No. 1OO12 of 2023 dated 13.O4.2O23 and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law, within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this orden and duly communicate the decision to the petitioners. However, there shal! be no order as to costs. .:.. q T \-\\1 \r \ t2 SN, J v P 24467 2023 Asa sequel, the miscellaneous petitrons, if any pending, ir the Writ Petition shall also stand close:d //TRUE COPY// SDi-A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER The Principrl 3ecretary, Revenue Department, Secretarial B.rildings, Hyderabad, S ate of Telangana -50O O22. -'el;lngana, The Chief Corrmissioner of Land Administration, State of Nampall'y, F yr erabad. The Collector end District lt/agistrate, Nizamabad, Nizamaba'l District. The Collectr>r and District Magistrate, Kamareddy, Kamar-eddy District. The Tahsildar Bichkunda [/andal, Nizamabad District. The Tahsildar Pitlam Mandal, Kamareddy District. One CC to llFl C.RAJA SEKHAR REDDY, Advocate [OPL,C: Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-Il, High Court for the State :;f Telangana, at Hyderabad. [{)UT] Two CD Co rir r; To 1 2 3 4( b 7 o I PSK. GJP 6 E'_ CC TODAY ..n, - -)l . itl E:S14 I4- /) li'rl 1';,\'.. \. [J9 ir,2;i5 :. IJr (l 'l ,"! ,./ --';--4/ HIGH COURT DATED:28103i2025 ORDER WP.No.24467 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @bP x q t,

1.. i ,,, -, I ) r.,(<,,i,'.i,, r,,,,rr,.;1,. r,,., i..r.i,