High Court · 2025

Petition undet Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of [\/andamus, declaring that the action of the 2nd respondent in rejectingthepetitionersrequestforcompassionateappointmentvideimpugned order dated 25-6-2018 as being arbitrary, illegal' irrational contrary to compassionateappointmentschemeand|nviolationofArticlesl4and,l6ofthe constitution of lndia and consequently hold that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed in any suitable post on compassionate grounds consequent upon the demiseofhermotherinharnessandinaccordancewiththeGovernmentorder issuedinGoMs.No612GA(Ser'A)Departmentdated30-10.1991andCircular Memo No 60681/Ser.A/2003-1 dated 12-B-20O3 with all consequential benefits' IANO:1OF2 018 Petition unde' section 15'1 cpc praying that in the circumrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents i. consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in accordance with the Government orders issued in G.o.il/s.No. 612 GA (ser.A) Department dated 30-10-199'r and rerated instructions by suspending the operation of rejection order dated 25-6-201g issued by the 2ncl respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.LINGA RAO Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI K.V.RAMAN, SC FOR TSHC The Court made the following: ORDER ) TIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P'SAM KOSHY AND TIIE HONOURABLE SNI TUSNCN NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA W.P.N o.32623 ()F 2018 ORDER' (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P'Sam Koshy) Heard Mr' D'Linga Rao' leamed counsel for the petitioner andMr.K.V.Raman,leamedStandingCounselforthe respondents. Perused the record'

2. The present is a claim for compassionate appointment prayed by the petitioner' The mother of the petitioner is said to have been working as a Copyist in the Court of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal' She died in harness on 18'03'2013' The deceased, mother of the petitioner, died under suspicious circumstances. The husband of the deceased i'e'' father of the present petitioner was doubted of being the person responsible for the death of the deceased' He was implicated in a criminal case vide Cr.No'68 of 2013 and was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 498-4 and 306 IPC' The said case finally stood decided ort29'03'20l4where the accused' father of I l I 2 the petitioner, was acquitted. The acquittal was on the brlsis of the entire material witnesses cited by the prosecution tuminp, hostile.

3. Subsequently, in 2016, the father of the present petitioner had fited a writ petition seeking compassionate appoirLtment on the death of his wife. The said writ petition came up hefore the Division Bench of this High Court in W.p.No.5050 o1 2016 on

18.02.2016. Under the peculiar circumstances and alr;o taking into consideration the provisions of the scheme for compassionate appointment, the Division Bench though was not inr:lined to grant/ issue any directions to the respondents for considering the claim of the father of the petitioner i.e., husband of the deceased employee for employment on compassionate ground rather took a sympathetic view and passed an order directing that in rhe event if the daughter of the petitioner wants to claim compassionate appointment, she may do so by making an appropriate appiication within a period of three months from the date she attainsr the age of majority. 'lhe said direction was granted granting relaxation to the provisions of the scheme for compassionate appointntent and also considering the fact that the petitioner herein had crossed the age of 77 year.s by that time. It would be relevant at this iuncture 3 to quote the operative part of the order passed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid writ petition on 18'02'2016 as under: *The necessity to adiudicate this aspect is obviated as' afairunderstandingisreachedatthehearingbetweenthe parties that instead of considering the case 'of the petitioner for compassionate appointment' the eldest daughter of the petitioner and the deceased could be considered for such appointment However' the only constraint in this regard is that she has not attained majority within Nvo years from the date of death of the deceased-employee for being considered for compassionate appointment as per Clause-4(2) of the scheme of Compassionate appointment But' considering the hard and peculiar facts of this case' where' in ordinary course, the petitioner would have been eligible for compassionate appointment' but for his involvement in the criminal case' we feel that interests of iustice would be met if, as an exceptional case' the above-mentioned requirement is relaxed in favour of the eldest daughter of the deceased. We are informed at the hearing that the eldest daughter of the deceased by name G-Abhinaya is presently about 17 years of age and she also possesses 1Oh Class orruo.r,,on- She is permitted to make her application for compassionate appointment within three months of her attaining maiority' on receipt of such application' respondent No'2 is directed to consider her case for compassionate appointment without reference to the above-noted requirement of the minor aPplicant attaining maiority within two years from the date of death of the deceased-employee, take an appropriate decision and 4 communicate the same to the applicant within two months of receipt of such application'. However, the petitioner herein who was already tenrh pass on the date w.ben the earlier writ petition filed by her lather i.e., W.P.No.5050 of 2016 was disposed but did not apply for compassionate appointment within the stipulated period of three months as provided by the Division Bench and the petitioner herein made an application for the first time on 04.06.201g. This application, when it was taken up for considerati,cn by the competent authority, was rejected on the ground that it was not submitted ra,ithin the stipulated period as provided by the High Court on 18.02.2016.

4. Though the said application stood retumed bar:,k to the petitioner regretting the consideration vide order dated 25.06.20rg, the present rvrit petition was subsequently hled on 31.07.201g for an appropriate suitable direction.

5. As per the material documents available in the wril petition, the petitioner's date of birth is 10.06.199g. She has attained the age of majoritv i.e., 1g years on 10.06.2016. In terms of rhe order of the High (lourt on lg.02.2016, she had to move an apolication 5 seeking for compassionate appointment within three montls from the date of attaining the age of majority i.e., the application ought to have been made by 10.09.2016. However, the application was made only on 04.06.2018 i.e., after a gap of almost two years from the date of attaining the age of majority. There was no attempt made by the petitioner seeking for any relaxation insofar as the time limit within which the application had to be made to the respondents. In the absence of any such further relaxation being given to the time prescribed in the said order, the petitioner was bound to move an application within the stipulated period itself and there was no scope left for the petitioner to have applied at a later stage. The fact that the petitioner had not applied promptly within the period prescribed and had moved an application at a belated stage of around two years itself forces this Bench to draw an adverse inference so far as the petitioner having sufficient means to sustain or else she would have applied within the time prescribed.

6. The compassionate appointments are not to be treated as an alternative source of recruitment. It is always treated as a welfare measure provided by the employer to meet the emergent situation 6 that arises on the sudden demise of the bread eamer in tl.re family. It is also meant to provide immediate relief to the family to tide away the penury situation that they place upon the death of the person who rl-as the source of income in the family.

7. The leamed counsel for the petitioner canvassed hard for this Bench again to take another sy,rnpathetic approach tovrards the petitioner and her family. We find it diffrcult to accepl the said request of the leamed counsel for the reason that if we read the order passed by the Division Bench in the writ petition that was filed by the father of the petitioner, it would be evidently ,.:lear that the Bench hr:aring the said writ petition at that moment of time itself had taken a sympathetic approach towards the pr:titioner. The Bench had relaxed the clause relating to the sch eme for compassionate appointment while permitting the petitioner to apply. Even though under the scheme she was not permiil ed to do so because of the time gap between the date of death and the number of years that have elapsed by then, and also considt.rring the fact that the petitioner was in a shorl period of time attai,ing the age of majoritl , the relaxation was so granted by the High Court. However, the petitioner still failed to avail the said reraxar ion that 7 / was already granted and the sympathy that was already shown' We are afraid we cannot take another sympathetic approach and relax the clauses ofthe scheme for compassionate appoinhnent for the second time and give a further relaxation to the petitioner in the repeat petition that the petitioner has made for the claim for compassionate appointment when her claim had already been accepted bf,tfre ff]9tr Court and had also directed the respondent authorities, particulariy the District Court concerned to consider her claim with the rehxation those were mentioned in the said order. For the aforesaid reasons' we do not find sufficient force in the claim pufforth by the petitioner.

8. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, rejected' There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-V.KAVITHA TANT REGISTRAR ASS SECTION OFFICER . One CC to SRI D.LINGA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] . One CCtoSRl K.V.RAMAN, SC FORTSHC [OPUC] . Two CD Copies To 1 2 3 PSK. GJP HIGH COURT DATED:1110212025 ORDER WP.No.32623 of 2018 ( q ') o 1 $E SIt ;i5 1 0 Atfl 2il25 P t',') ,}, t r rpl lrUS ) i REJECTING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,b