High Court · 2025

3. The Diiector, Cential Counciifor Research in Unani Medicine, New Delhi- 58. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring that the petitioner is entitled for appointment to any suitable post under the control of respondents consequent on the death of his father Sri K. Subramani, Cook, Central Research lnstitute of Unani Medicine, Hyderabad on 12-8-2OO1 while in service with all consequential benefits by holding the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment vide [\rlemo.F.No.153/78-CRlU[t//Vol.ll, dated 3-5-2002 issued by the Administrative officer, Central Research lnstitute of Unani Medicine, Hyderabad on the untenable ground of non-availability of posts while notifying Class-lV posts to be filled by direct recruitment is as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution and also opposed to all canons of equity, justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D. LINGA RAO Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy. SOLICITOR GEN. OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION No.194O5 of 2OO2 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner against the rejection of his compassionate appointment uide Memo.F.No 113/ 78-CRIUM/Vol-ll, dated 03.05.2OO2 on t}:,.e ground of n on-availability of posts while notifying Class-lV posts to be fi1led by direct recruitment as illegal, arbitrary and violative ol Articles 14, 16 and 2l of the Constittttion.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner herein stated that the father of the petitioner by name K.Subramani, was working as a Cook i -r Central Research Institute of Unani Medicine, Hyderabad. since 18.1 f . i978. He was expired while he was in service on -2.08.2001, after rendering nearly 23 years of service, leaving behind his wife, two sons and daughter, who are solely depencLent on his sa1ary. He also stated tha1. the mother of the petitioner gave representation to respondent No.2 herein on

30.08.200I , requesting him to provide employment to the petitioner u,i'l.h suitable post, but it was rejected on 03.05.2002. He further stated that respondents institute has published a notihcation rlated 21.08.2002, notifying various categories of posts including Peon, Ward tsoy, Gest.Operator and other posts t' 2 to be frlled by dire ct recruitment. The writ petitioner has completed S.S.C. Respondents have considered the similar cases of compassionate appointments, but adopted a differential yardstick in the case of writ petitioner and rejected his application and thus he preferred the present writ petition.

3. Respondents uide proceedings dated 03.05.2OO2, informed that the request of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be considered due to non_ availability of posts in the cadre of compassionate appointments. It is undisputed that the father of the writ petitioner rendered nearly 23 years of service from 1g.1I.lg7g to 12.08.2001. The notification dated 21.08.2002 has been enclosed along with the affidavit, in which one post of Gest.Operator, one post of Ward Boy and one post of peon were advertised for 1Ofr class qualification.

4. In the counter affidavit liled by the Deputy Director Incharge, Central Research Institute for Unani Medicine, Hyderabad, he stated that they are paying group insurance scheme, family pension (stiil pa],lng), DCR Gratuity, Encashment of leave and GPF to the petitioner,s family. The application frled by the writ pe titioner was considered and '/: /,// o i E i i l 3 rejected an(l i.. becarne final and thus the present writ petition is not maintair-ra b1e. He also stated that the institute was following the O.M.No.l4Ol4l6l1994 Estt.(D), dated 09.10.1998 governing the compassionate appointments. Under Para 3 of the said O. M . , r:c mpassionate appointments can be made only in Group-C ard Group-D posts against direct recruitment quota. Under Para tl the compassionate appointment.s can be made only up to 50z6 of the vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota. It is :rlso stipulated that the department may hold up 5% ol the var:ancies rvhile notifying to St:iff Selection Commrssion / trmplo1'ment exchange. Making appointments by casual or cla ily u'age, ad-hoc conlract basis ergainst regular vacancies shc,uld not circumvent the ceiling of 5%o prescribed. In Group-C oa tegory two vacancies namel1, one Junior Stenographi:r and one Gest.Operator u,ere available, whereas in Group-D catogory two vacancies namely one vacancy of Ward Boy (reserved for OBC) and another vacancy of l)eon (Cook) were available f,'rr direct recruitment quota and lter-rce, the total number of vzrcancies under Group-C and Group-D category of direct recruit ment quota are 4 in number. Therefore, 57o in respect of the said 4 vacancies constitutes 0.2, which do not constitute r)r.e vacancy, as such there was n(, vacancy in the \ 4 category of compassionate appointment and thus the proceedings dated 03.05.2002 was neither illegal nor arbitrary

5. The Agenda notes for the meeting of the committee on compassionate appointment on OT.lO.2022 is hled before this Court, which shows that respondents have considered some parameters for giving compassionate appotntment and scrutinized 35 cases in accordance with the DopT guidelines. They provided employment only to 7 candidates, in which writ petitioner was not present. They have considered family pension as one of the criteria. The family pension of the petitioner herein is Rs.2,06,234/- and, he gave application on 12.08.2O01, but they considered the appointment of the applicant who gave application on O8.OZ.2O2O with family pension of Rs.26,25,137/- and also considered another application dated 26.12.2017 with family pension of Rs.9,23,2251_. 6 Admittedly, the application of the petitioner herein was given way back in the year 2001, but respondents have considered the subsequent applications given in the year 20l1 and 2O2O without considering his application. Initially, respondents stated that there was no vacancy as they have to confine to 5o/o of vacancies for providing compassionate '- :;rx ( 5 appointmelrt and later when they conducted meeting of the committee on compassionate appointments, devaluated their eligibility or.r 08.06.2022. As per the agenda dated 07.1O.2022, lbr hlling up ()f 7 posts in Group-C they have. not considered his application 'I'he reasons stated by them for not. considering the application isi that in the additional details of compassionate :lppointment, it r.,r,as shown that writ petitioner rvas employed as ri'aiter ancl earning Rs.15,000/- per month. It was also rnentioned that volrnger brother, who was married, was suffering fnrnt Brain Tumor. [t was also observed that how the lamilies are surviving all these years when rlpplications are pending frorrL the past 10 to 15 years. As the respondents, I I institute farleC to provide employment to the writ petitioner, he rvas r,r.orking as ri,aiter, on that ground his application for r:ompassionale appointment cannot be rejected. Initially, respondents stated that there is no vacancy for providing t mploymenr. When there was vacancy, though the application of the writ per-itioner was pending from the year 2001, it was not cor-rsidered frrr the reasons best known to them and the selection process is unfair. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to allos, the present writ petition. 6

7. In the result, the present writ petition is allowed with a specific direction to the respondents to provide empioyment to the writ petitioner on compassionate grounds by duly reconsidering their process of appointment wjthin a period of three months from the date of this Order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Witness THE HON1BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL, Thursday, The .Thirteenth Day Of March Two Thousand And Twenty Five //TRUE COPYII SD/. K.SREERAMA MURTHY SI TANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Administrative Officer, Central Research lnstitute of Unani lriledicine, E.S.l. X Road, A.B. Colony Road, Hyderabad

2. The Deputy Director, Central Research lnstitute of Unani Medicine, E.S.l. X Roads, A.G. Colony Road, Hyderabad.

3. The Director, Central Council for Research in Unani [Vledicine, New Delhi- 58. 4. One CC to Sri D. Linga Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar Dy. Solicitor gen. Of lndia [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies TJ GJP HIGH COURT DATED:1310312025 ORDER ( a5 o (., ltte- ijf4/ c (, 10 A?B ?025 " ',,Af -----===.2" ".u,1f ) ' WP.No.19405 ot 2002 t , ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS