1. Panikera. Srikanth v. The State of Telangana

Order

This Writ Petition is fi1ed with the foliowing prayer: "....to issue u.lit or d,irection more particularlg one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus declaing the rejection uide Memo Rc.No.A2/ 379/ 2022, dated 27 O5'2022 and uide Memo Rc.No.A2/ 37g/ 2022, dated 18 01'2023 issued bg Respondent No-3 as arbitrary ond iltegal an agoinst the- prouisions of G.O.Ms'No'469 G'A D'(SC-A) Dept'' dt.O8.11.1996 and' G.O.Ms'504 (SC'A) Dept ' Dt:11 08- 2OO8 R/LU clause and 5 of G o'Ms 5O' G'A'(Sc-A) Dept'' dt:21 O2'2O14 ond also os per Sub Clause (b) of Clause (2) of section 4 of the Telangano (Regutation of Appointments of Pubtic Seruices and' RationaLisotion of staff Pattern and Pag Structure) Act, 1994 (Act 2 of .1994) and. olso Articte 14' 16 21 of Constitution of India' and also as per the ratio laid doun in W'A'69 of 2O12 and W.A.415 of 2O12 consequently direct the respondents to prouide appropiote job in State Gouernment in accord.once uith aboue mentioned prouisions "

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners' learned Government Pleader for Gcneral Administration appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and perused the record'

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing' learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court in W.P.No. 192 15 of 2022, dt 3 1 'O 1 2025' wherein this I 2 Court had categorically held that though the l.r petitioner therein is rrct cntitled for being provided rr ilh empl ryment in terms of rl.O.Ms.No.469, dt.Og.1 1.1996 or G_O.Xr s.No.504, dt. 1 1.08.2018, the 2nd pedtioner therein is cntitled t I be paid additional ex-gratia amount of Rs.5,O0,00O/- in terms of G.O.Ms.No.lirl, dt.2 1.O2.2014.

Learnrr,:l counsel for the petitioner further sub. nits that even 1n the t€rcts of the present case, as the lst petttior er was a mlnor at t re relevant point of time and zrlso u hen the Government had extended the said benefit b,r, issuing G.O.Ms.No.S3 4, the 2nd petitioner being wife of the d:ceased victim woulc be entitled for payment of additional rx_gratia amount of Fts;.S lakhs in terms of G.O.Ms.No.50, as helcl in WP.No. 7921I of ,2022, and, seeks for extending similar bcnefit as granted to the petitioners therein.

5. Per contra, learned Government pleader appe:rrrn5 lor the respondents, while not disputing that this Cour_r in the aforesaid decision having held that wherever there is no eligible family memb(r: to be provided with employment, in lieu of employment :vlditional ex_gratia amount of Rs.5 laklrs was directed to be paid in terms of G.O.Ms.No.50, r,",ould subrlit that though the rerioondents-authorities have issued a cheqrre in a sum of Rs.5 lzrxhs towards additional ex_gratia amount in the 3 month of December, 2019, tine sarne was refused to be received by the petitioners, and sought for being provided with employment only and thus, the respondents-authorities are only liable to pay the additional ex-gratia amount and not the interest as directed by this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition' 6 I have taken note of the respective submissions made' 7 . Admittediy, the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court in W'P'No'192i5 of 2022, dt.31.O 1.2025.

8. However, the submission as regards payment of interest on the additional ex-gratia amount of Rs 5 lakhs is concerned' the said submission made by the iearned Governmbnt Pleader in the aforesaid writ petition was rejected by this Court having regard to Clause 8 of the G O' which required the District Collectors/ Superintendent of Police to see the said order is communicated to the families of civilians killed in extremist violence and obtain applications within a period of three months and the respondent-authorities having failed in that regard' The said reasoning applies in equal force to the facts of the present case and as such, the said submission of the learned Government Pleader is rejected' 4 9' In v eq' of the above, and for the reasons ari <e as were stated in V/ p.No. t9275 of 2022, dt.3t.O7.2025, this Court is of the vierv th at z/ the action of the respondents aut -rorities in issuing thc impugned proceeding, dt.27 .O5.2022, re- ecting the claim of th,t 1sr petitioner for provision of employmcn r does not call for any interference; and ii) the 2,a petitioner is rntitled to be paid adclitional ex_gratia as per G.O. \4s.No.50, dt.27.02.20t4.

10. Srnce, of additional thc respondents have failed to make the payment ex gratia to the 2"d petitioner immcdia tely, this Court is of the viern, that the respondents-authorities 1re lo be directed to pay the additional ex_gratia amount ol.Rs.5 lakhs in terms of G.O. \4s.No.50 , dt.2|.O2.2O74, along with inter,:sr f@ 8% per annLlrn Ircm the date of issuance of the aforesaicl G.O. till the actuar da te of payment. Further, taking note of the act that the 2n.r petiLi,;ncr,s husband was killed in extremist vic ler.rce in the year 199€, the respondents_authorities are directecl ,o make the afores.rid llavment along with interest as direcLecl r,,ithin a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt ol a cop1, of this order. 11 Subject to the above observation and direction, tlre Writ Petition is clisp osed of No order as to costs n l I i I I

12. Registry is directed to append a copy of the order in WP.No.19215 of 2022, dt.31.01.2022 to this order'

13. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/.P. CH. NAGAB HUSHAMBA ISTANT REGI //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, li}:'a'm:iitsfl"",:ixn#)-?",,:lf{ffi::: on DePartment a, Warangal (Urban) l 1pig"$fli[gfl$tr#ffi ' m":'-k['::t, o' tn" o'0"r. in w P No 1e21 5 ot 2022' dated 31'o1'2o$ iffit+H-e-ry;;T: i"x " *"" io this Order) BSK LS s- U HIGH COURT DATED:17102t2025 ORDER WP.No.40654 of 2022 |,) 2 2 APn 20[ * DS.s FIAT C \lgir I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS {t- I 0 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.19215 of 2022 ORDER: This Writ Petition is fried assailiog the action of the 2"d respondent in issuing the proceeding uide RC.No.A1/154 Ol2O2l, dt.24.ll.2O2l, whereby the request of the petitioners for providing emplo5rment to the 1st petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.504 G.A.(SC.A) Department, dt.1 1.08.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.SO G.A.(Sc A) Dept., dt.21.O2.2O14, has been rejected on the ground that the 2nd petitioner had opted to receive ex-gratia amount, as being highly arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 26 & 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the ratio laid down by this Court in Writ Appeal No.69 of 2012, dt.23.O2.2012.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for GAD appearing for respondents and perused the record.

3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the 1$ petitioner is daughter and the 2nd petitioner is wife of late Ch.Teneswar; that their father/husband was killed by the extremists on 29.06.1994; that the aforesaid incident was noted 2 by registerinl; a Crime uide FIR.No.21 of 1994 in Madd rr police Station in t.re erstwhile Waralgal District(presently Siddipet District); thzl on their father/husband being killed by the extremists, the respondents except offering monetary b enefit in the form of e >:-gratia in a sum of Rs.25,O00/-, did not provtde any other ber r,:fi t.

4. It is tlrr: Government further case of the petitioners that tlre State had issued G.O.Ms.No.70, dt.26.J2.1996 enhancing tlL,: ex-gratia relief to the victims of exr remists, violence .anc thereafter t-'re relief towards damages to propertie s; that State Government had issued another government orCer uide G.O.Ms.No.469, dt.08.11.1996, p roviding for employment to the son or daughter or spouse of an5 person killed in extr'omist violence or in police frring; that by the aforesaid G.O. issued employment was provided at the level of Junior Assis t ant/ Typist depending on the qualificatior of the applicants bS amending the Andhra pradesh (Regu)ation of Appointments to Public Services ard Rationalisation :f Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (for short ,tt e Act) suitably; that rrnder the aforesaid G.O., the District Cc.llectors were also authorized to grant relaxation of age on case.to_case basis; and tha t the said G.O. was given effect from 26.C'2.tgg6 3 i.e., the date on which the G.O.Ms.No.7O enhalcing ex-gratia relief was issued.

5. Petitioners further contend that on issuance of G.O.Ms.No.469 as the beneht of employment :vas denied to the son, daughter of the deceased, killed in extremist violence prior to 26.02.1996, on the ground that on the date of death of the victim, the applicant was a minor, various writ petitions came to be fi1ed before this Court; and that this Court had frowned upon the approach of the respondents-authorities in rejecting the claims on the ground of the applicants being minor on the date of the death of the victim in the extremist violence, since, the entitlement to seek employment by the dependents. of victims had arisen only upon issuance of G.O'No.469.

6. It is the further case of the petitioners that the Government thereafter issued G.O.Ms.No.504, dt.1 1.08'2008 granting extension of benefit of compassionate appointment to the dependent family members of innocent civilians killed by extremists prior to 26.02.1996, and had granted three (O3) months time from the date of issuance of said G.O. for the eligible applicants to submit their applications to the District Collectors concerned . 4 7 . Petitiorrr:rs also contend that thereafter the Gol ernment had provrderl for monetary relief in the form of palment of additional ex-llratia of Rs.5 lakhs in lieu of employment, if there is no eligrble lamily member as on the date of the dea.h of the victim by issuing G.O.Ms.No.SO, dt.2l.O2.2O\4; ancl lhat the said paymerrl: of additional ex-gratia was extender to all previous cases where no employment was provided to the families of crrilians killed in extremist violence.

8. Petitior-- t:rs further contend that though the 2nd p :titioner had submitte <l an application in terms of G.O,Ms.No.504, for providing em tloyment on 04.11.2008, the said applicar ion was rejected by the respondents.

9. It is zLlso the case of the petitioners that on the Government issuing G.O.Ms.No.50 , dt.2l .O2.2Ol +, the respondents rlid not make the payment of additional e x-gratia amount to ttLe 2"d petitioner being the wife of the v ctim of extremist vio. e:nce immediately, even though they we re fully aware that e trployment was not provided either in t trms of G.O.Ms.No.469t or G.O.Ms.No.5O4; that oniy after _he 2"d petitioner submitting an application seeking employmen t to her daughter i-e., 1.he 1"t petitioner, the respondents offerec to pay :. -.. - 5 the additional ex-gratia amount of Rs.5 lakhs in tlle yeat 2022; ald since, by that time the 1sr petitioner had completed her B- Tech course il May, 2016, and became eligible to seek employment, the 2"d petitioner had rejected the aforesaid ex- gratia payment offered by the respondents keeping in view the interest of the 1"t petitioner to secure emplo5,,rnent.

10. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioners that on the 1st petitioner attaining the age of majority, the respondents- authorities instead of providing the employment in terms of G.O.Ms.Np.469, as further extended by G.O.Ms.No.504, have rejected the application made by the l"t petitioner on O3.|2.2O2O by issuing the impugned proceeding, dl.2+.11.2o21, contrar5r to the spirit of G.O.Ms.No.469 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.504 and also contrary to the dicta laid down in various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court.

11. In support of the aforesaid contentions reliance has placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP. (C) Nos.9520 and952ll2013, and the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.69 and 415 of 2012, and of a co-ordinate bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.23363 of

2014. 6

72. Countr r afhdavit on behalf of respondent No.3 is 1iled.

13. On the basis of the counter affidavit it is contenled that the 1st petitioner was aged about four (O4) months on the date when her faltrer was killed in extremist vioience ancl .hus, on the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No .469, the 1.t petrtic ner was only aged about 2Vz years; ald that though the 2"d p etitioner was eligibie t,r seek employment in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 169, she did not submi: any application at the relevant point of time, and as such petlt:oners cannot contend that thc respondent ; having failed to -pro,iide employment to petitioners being cle pendent daughter/ spc use.

74. It is als o contended that though the 2"d petitione - claims to have subraitted an application seeking employn :ent on 04.11.2008 ir terms of G.O.Ms.No.5O4, and the saicl apl rlication being rejecteci by the respondents-authorities, the 2nd pr:titioner has neither placed the said rejection order nor challen ged the same before this Court.

15. It is alr,t contended on behalf of the responder ts that even on the rt:rte of issuance of G.O.No.504, the 1.r pt titioner was only aged ;tbout 14 years ald thus, being a minor cc uld not have been prcvided with employment, as the power to rt:lax the 7 age and educational qualifications conferred on the District Collectors was only in relation to the upper age arrd not for providing employment to minors.

16. It is also contended on behalf of the respondents that the 2nd petitioner had consented for receiving additional ex-gratia amount of Rs.S lakhs by submitting an application, initially on 09.06.20 15 and thereafter again on 07 .06.2019, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.50; that while the respondents-authorities were in the process of obtaining necessary approval for payment of additional ex-gratia of Rs.5 lakhs to the 2"d petitioner pursuant to the consent letters given by her, the l"t petitioner herein had submitted an application, dt.O3.12.2020, requesting. to prowide employment under G.O.Ms.No.5O4 claiming that her mother was misguided to opt for additional ex-gratia amount of Rs'S lakhs; and that the said application was rejected as having been submitted beyond the period of three (03) months specified in G.O.Ms.No.504, dt. 1 1.08.2008.

17. On behalf of the respondents it is further contended that the petitioners herein had approached this Court earlier by frling a writ petition uide W.P.No.14l2O of 2O21, claiming that the respondents are not providing employment to one of the family meml,ers of the deceased victim under the sc heme of compassionat,: appointment as per G.O.Ms.No_ j04 by considering tlLe representations submitted; that this C, >urt had disposed of t he said writ petition on 25.06.2021 dire< ting the respondents to consider the representations subntitterI by the petitioners v'ithin a period of six (06) weeks; and .hat the petitioners Jrereafter also filed a contempt ca ie uide C.C.No.1295 of 2021 wherein the respondents had clLimed of having passerl the impugned order.

18. On ,beh zLlf of the respondents it is further conten,led that since, on the date of issualce of G.O.Ms.No.5O4, rvhe..eby the benefit conferred under G.O.Ms.No.469 was extended t,r all the eligible applic ants of the deceased-victims killed 1 rrior to

26.02.7.996, r-:quiring them to submit applications uithin a period of thrr r: months, no application is submitted by the 2na petitioner for orovision of employment, and insofar as the 1st petitioner is c oncerned, the same cannot be considercd as she was minor at tt:re relevant point of time.

79. It is further contended on behalf of the responderrts that on withdrawa of the above mentioned G.Os by the Gove rnment uide G.O.Rt.lkt.2493, dt.OZ.O9.2OlS, tlc 2"a petitioner had f.1'- 9 consented to receive additional ex-gratia arnount of Rs.5 lakhs; and that she was issued with a cheque dt.30.11.2021, but was refuied to be received by her and sought for provision of employment to the 1st Petitioner.

20. l,earned Government Pleader would further submit that though the 2"d petitioner was eligible for employment upon issuance of G.O.Ms.No.469, dt.08. Lt.1996 or even thereafter as per G.O.Ms.No.5O4, dt.11.08'2008, at no point of time the 2"d respondent sought for employment by submitting application'

21. It id also contended by the respondents that insofar as the claim of the 2"d petitioner of making an application on O4.11.2008, no material is placed before this Court in support of the aforesaid submission. However, the petitioners are now claiming of the documents having been lost in floods, which plea they did not take, when they had filed the writ petition uide W.P.No.14120 of 2021, and as such the said claim cannot now be accepted.

22. Learned Government Pleader further submits that since, the respondents are very much interested in extending the benefit in terms of various GOs issued, the respondents are 10 always readl' ald willing to pay the ex-gratia amount offered earlier by iss :ing a fresh cheque.

23. In reply, it is contended on behalf of the petitior ers that though Clau:;e 6 of G.O.Ms.No.SO4 requires the respordents to communicate the aforesaid GO to the families of the e xtremist violence vrctr.ms and obtain applications in tir te, the respondents- authorities did not do so by inform ing the petrtioners of r.he benefit conferred under the aJoresard fO, and even though cronsent for receiving additionat ex-gratia amount was given on )9.06.2015, the additional ex-gratia amolnt was not paid imnr,:diately and was offered only in tine yczr 2022, after . the p ertitioners approaching this Court b1 , Iiling W.P.No.1412(t of 2021, and thus, the respondents,au horities have not taker, any action to protect the interests of the victims of the civilianr; who were killed in extremist violence.

24. I have t,rken note of the respective contentions urg:d

25. At the or-Ltset, it is to be noted that the right to seelr by the dependent scn, daughter or spouse of a civilian killed by extremists for provision of empioyment had arisen, fir;tly, on the State Gove,r'nment issuing G.O.Ms.No.469, dt.0g.1 1.1.996. 77

26. Though by the aforesaid G.O. issued, the benefit of providing employment was stated to have come into force w.e'f'

26.O2.1996, by amending the Act, and also conferring power on the Collectors to grant relaxation of age on case-to-case basis, the 1"t petitioner, who was only aged about 2 % years in the year 1996, could not have been considered for being provided with emplo5rment. 27 . Though the 2"d petitioner was a major and was eligible to be provided with employment, no material is placed before this Court to- show that the 2"d petitioner having made an application seeking empioyment and the same not being considered by the respondents-authorities, and being paid only ex-gratia amount of Rs.25,OOO/-. 2a. Though, the provision was made to provide employment to the victims of deceased-civilians killed in extremist wiolence in terms of G.O.Ms.No.469, the stald taken by the respondents in rejecting to provide emplo5rment to the victims of the deceased on the ground, that on the date of incident, the applicant being a minor, was held by this Court to be a perverse view of the matter, since, the eligibility to seek emplo5rment by the victim of the deceased arose only on the respondent-State issuing the L2 G.O., by whi:h date the applicant must have attained t-re age of majoritl.-

29. Tl-re fitate Government thereafter, by issuing G.O.Ms-No.514, dt. 11.08.2008, had once agarn exter cled the benefit of pr,r,zision of compassionate appointment as provided under G.C).Nr.469, dt.08.11.1996, even though the vicrims had deceased pr or to 26.02.1996, and directed all thc eligible applicants to submit their applications within a period of three (O3) months liom the date of issuance of the aforesaid G.O.

30. Even by the date of issuance of the aforesaid G_O No.504, the 1"t petiti(,ller was minor and the power to grant rc laxation conferred on the Collector was only in case of .IJpper , rge, and was not in rer;.:ect of 'Under Age', which if granted woulc also be contrary to 1aur, as no minor can be employed. 3 1 . Though the 2"a petitioner claims to have su bmitted application a:1er the issuance of the aforementioned _i.O. on

04. 1 1.2008, rr.:rd the said application not being consic.ered or reje cted, no material to the above effect is pla,:ed for consideratton by this Court. 13

32. Further, it is also to be noted that if the respondents- authorities had rejeited the claim of the 2"a petitioner for provision of emplo1'rnent by not grariting relaxation of age or ed.ucational qualifications, the 2'd petitioner ought to have challenged the said action. However, for the reasons best known, no such action is stated to have been initiated'

33. Though the petitioners claim of having lost the relevant documents in floods, in the absence of any material to substantiate the aforesaid submission being placed before this Court, this Court is loath to appreciate the said submission'

34. Though the State had extended the benefrt of provision of compassionate appointment by issuing G O'Ms'No'SO4, dt. 11.08.2008, in respect of all old incidents occurred prior to 26.02.1996 as mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.469, dtOS'll'1996, the said G.O., required the applicants to submit applications within a period of three (03) months from the date of its issualce i.e., from 11.08.2OO8.

35. Admittedly, the lst petitioner, who is now seeking employment under the aJoresaid G.O-, was a minor even on the said date, and as such, was not eligible to seek employment f I 1,4 even then, f<,r' her now to claim to be provided with em tloyment thereunder

36. It is tc be noted that on the date when the 1s1 I etitioner made applir;ation, dt.O3.12.2O2O for being provid :d with employment, there is no GO in operation, under rv rich the respondents vlere under obligation to provide employr nent, as all the G ()s. were withdrawn uid.e G.O.Rt.l tro.2473, dt.O7.O9.2O7i, and even the window period of three (O3) months granted un(l,rr G.O.Ms.No.504, dt.1 1.Og.2O0g, by which applications "r.ere directed to be submitted for compa;sionate appointment, had also lapsed.

37. Furthei, it is also to be noted that the responde tt-State taking note o'the fact that some of the victims of dece ased in extremist vio Lcnce couid not seek employment for various reasons like spouse, brothers, etc., are aged or only having surviving parents, had issued G.O.Ms.No.50, dt.2l.(2.2014 directing paynr,:nt of additional ex-gratia of Rs.5 lakhs ir lieu of employment. f there is no eligible family meml er for employment ar; on the date of death of the victim.

38. Upon t.-re issuance of the aforesaid G.O., t.le 2nd petitioner, rvhc is the wife of the deceased-victim, was ent .t1ed to 15 be paid the additional ex-gratia of Rs.S lakhs and as on the date of the death of the victim, the 1"t petitioner was a minor and the 2nd petitioner did not seek for providing employment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.469 as amended by G.O.No.504.

39. The provision of employment to the son, daughter or spouse of the deceased-victim is a policy decision of the State' The State initially decided to provide employrnent to son, daughter ald spouse, who were major on the said date w'e'f ,

26.O2.1996, and issued G.O.Ms.No.469. However, when the respondents refused to provide employment to the deceased- victim family on the ground of the aforesaid GO being applicable only in relation to those who were killed in extremist violence alter 26.02.1996, arld in other cases occurring prior to 26.02.7996, on the ground of the applicant being a minor on the date of incident, this Court in the decisions relied upon by the petitioner held that it is only upon issuance of G.O.Ms.No.469, a right has been conferred to seek employment and thus, the age of the applicant is to be considered as of the date of issuance of G'O., ald not on the date of incident, including power to grant relaxation in case of upper age' 1b

40. The said beneht was made available by tlLe State Government once again for all those deceased vi:tims of extremist vic,lence taken place prior to 26.O2.1996 b; issuing GO.Ms.No.5(r.1. However, in order to seek ben:fit, the Government had granted three (03) months time to the dependents tc submit application. Thus, the issr ance of G.O.Ms.No.5rl4, dt.i 1.08.20O8 granting extension of b enefrt to the cases pri,rr to 26.O2.1996, and the prescription of time limit mentioned irL the GO to seek benefit thereunder is a policy decision of tir,: State. It is settled position of law tha Courts cannot interf :re with the policy decisions [Union of Inltia and. Others us. Hindustan Deaelopment Corporatic,n and. othersll.

47. As notr,rl herein above, even on the date of issl ance of G.O.Ms.No.5(,.1 and the three months time granted the reunder to submit application seeking compassionate appointm,rnt, the 1"t petitionelr, as not eligible to seek employment being r. minor. In fact it is orly in the year 2O2O, the lst petitioner submitted application, dt.O3.12.2O2O seeking employment under 1(19931 3 supreme t.c,u116"r", ort t7 G.O.Ms.No.5O4, which was not in vogue by the said date as having been withdrawn on September, 2015 itself'

42. Though the ratio laid down in the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners binds this. Court, it is to be noted that any ratio decidendi is to be applied based on facts of each case.

43. The Hon'lcle Supreme Court in Bhaanagar Unioetsitg rt' Palitana Sugar Mitl (P) Ltd.'in Para 59 held that: " A decision, as is u-tell knoun, is an auttwitg for tuhich it is decided and not uhat can logicallg be d.ediced- therefrom. It is olso tuell settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts maA make a lot of difference in the precedential ualue of a decision'"

44. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated by tire Honble Supreme Court in Dinubhai Boghabhai Solonki a' State of Gujarats, in Para 56 held that: 'Eoch case depends on its oun facts and a close simitaritg betuteen one cose ond another is not enough because euen a single significant detail mag alter the entire aspect. In deciding such co"ses, one should auoid the temptation to decide cases /as said bg Cardozo) bg matching th-e colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on '(zoo:) z scc trt '1zot+1 + scc sze 18 tuh.ich side of the line a case falls, the bro td resembio.nce to another case is not at alL decisiue. "

45. Furthr I the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd.. a Commisstor, er of Central Excise, Delhi-Ila in para 8 I eld that "Courts should not place reliance on decisions uithcut discz.tssrrg as to hoLU the factual situation fits in tu tlt the fact :;ituation of the decision on u.thich relionce is ploced. ()bseruations of courts are neither to be retd. as Eucl tl's theorems nor as prouisions of a statL te and thrtt too taken out of their contert. The;e obserua'ions must be read in the contert in uthi:h theg apln:ar to haue been stated.'

46. In the hcts of the present case as detailed herei:r above, since, by'tht date of 1$ petitioner submitting app1ica..ion, the relevant G.Cs., having been withdrawn, the decisior s relied upon by the petitioners would not advance the case oI the lst petitioner. Ttrus, the action of the respondents in iss tlng the impugned pror:eeding calnot be held as illegal. 47 . As noted hereinabove, though the 2"d petitiot rer was eligible to scr:k emplo5,.rnent in the year 1996 itsell, under G.O.Ms.No.4(r1), and again in the year 2O0g on issu ance of G.O.Ms.No.5(r,l., no material is placed before this Court to show the 2"d pet t ioner having made any application seeking employment zmd the same being not considered by the o (zooq)s scc::s rr!;j:!r4:. :, -,;:] .. - -..:,.... r.a: iii.a:-.;..,' .. ,. -.-.r|::i::!{:::. ,ra:::i1.:r::ia?*t ::-: "'$:{t ..-- r Il. '...:! 19 respondents. On the other hand, the 2"d petitoner in the year 2015 had consented to receive additional ex-gratia of Rs.5 lakhs under G.O.Ms.No.50 in lieu of emplo5rment.

48. Further, it is to be noted that even though the 2"d petitioner had consented to receive the additional ex-gratia amount in the month of November, 2015, the respondents- authorities, who had a duty and responsibility to take care of the family members of the deceased-victim, have miserably failed to extend the beneht. to which the family members of the deceased-victims are entitled to immediately.

49. Though on behalf of the respondents it is contended that they had offered payment of additional ex-gratia amount of Rs.5 lakhs by issuing a cheque, dt.30. 1 7.2021, that by itself would not absolve the respondents claim of having acted timely, as it had taken seven years for them to offer the said payment, after the 2"d petitioner consenting to receive the additional ex-gratia amount as per G.O.Ms.No.5O.

50. Thus, this Court is of the view that the respondents- authorities had a duty to make payrnent of the additional ex- gratia amount of Rs.5 lakhs to the 2"4 petitioner immediately after the issuance of G.O.Ms.No .5O, dt.21.O2.2014, knowing 20 very well th lt there is no eligible family member of the deceased-vic:im to be provided with compz .ssionate appointment 5 1 . Further, though the 2"d petitioner had become el gible for receiving adrl.tional ex-gratia amount in February, 2(,14, and also having r;onsented to receive the same in Novembrr, 2015, as the said ,ldditional ex-gratia amount was offere<. to the petitioners only on 30.11.2O21, by which time, the 2nd petitioner's da.ughter i.e., the 1st petitioner having atta Lned the age of majori:1, and also having obtained graduation degree, had created a ho le in her to secure employment for her r aughter having suffer:C although this period on account of the leath of her husbanc at the hands of the extremists. If r nly the respondents-authorities had acted in time by p roviding necessary hrrirncial assistance in the form of pay: nent of additional ex-E;ratia, the present situation and the suffe ring the 2"d petitroner ead to undergo in bringing up the 1sr pe litioner, could have bee n avoided.

52. For the rforesaid reasons, this Court is of the vi:w that i/ the action of the respondents-authorities in issu ng the impugned prcceeding, dt.24.11.2O2L, rejecting the clairr of the 2L 1st petitioner for provision of emplolT nent does not call for any interference; and ii) the 2"d petitioner is entitled to be paid additional ex-gratia as per G.O.Ms.No'5O, dt'21'O2 '2O|4'

53. Since, the respondents have failed to rpake the payment of additional ex-gratia to the 2"d petitioner immediately' this Court is of the view that the respondents-authorities are to be directed to pay the additional ex-gratia amount of Rs'5 lakhs in terms of G.O.Ms.No.50 , dt.21-O2-2O14, aTong with interest @ 87o per annum from the date of issuance of the aforesaid G'O' till the actual date of payment. The aforesaid payment along with interest as directed shall be paid within a period of four (O4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order'

54. Subject to the above observation and direction' the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs'

55. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if aly' pending shall stand closed. 3l"t January, 2025. T. VINOD KUMAR, J