SRl. R v. MALLIKARJUNA RAC)

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of india praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ or order more particularly one in thg nature of writ of MANDAMUS and declaring the proceedings of the .r't ,iespondent vide Memo.No.494-Plser-lllA2l2014 dated 16.11 .2015 cornmunicated to the petitioner through proceedings No. L and olE3l09l2009-i6 dated 20.1 .2017 in rejecting my claim for providing appointment as Junior Assistant under compassionate grounds on the ground of delay and considering the cases of others whose cases are also similar to that of the petitioners case issued in G.o.Ms.No.104 dated 2.5.2o11 as illegal, arbitrary, uncon stitutio na I, violative of Article 14 and 16 of the constitution of lndia and consequently quash and set aside the same by holding that the petitioner is entitled for appointment as Junior Assistant under compassionate grounds as was considered in other cases issued in G.O. Ms.No. 1 04 dated 2.5.2O1 1 lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cot.rrt may be pleased to direct the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioner for appointment under compassionate in terms of G.O.Ms.NO.104 dated 2 5.2011 and orders of this Honourable Court in W.P.No.26'1 84 of 2011 dated 3.S).2011 by suspending the operation cf the impugned proceedings of the 1'r respondent vide Memo. No.494-PlSer-lllA2l2O14 dated 16.11.2015 communicated to the petitioner through proceedings No. L and O/E3/09/2009-16 dated 20.1 .2017, pending disposal of the main writ petition lA NO: 'f OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the :ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner herein to file the additional material papers in the above Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. R. V. MALLIKARJUNA RAC) Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.48155 of 2O18 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: "to declare the proceedings of the respondent No.l uide Memo No.494-P/ Ser-II/ A2/ 2014 dated 16.11.2O15 communicated to the petitioner through proceedings No.LAO/ E3/ 09/ 2009-16 dated 20.O1.2017 in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for prouiding appointment as Junior Assbtant under compassionote grounds on the ground of delag and considering the case of others uhose cases are also similor to that of the petitioner's case issued in G.O.Ms.No.1O4 dated O2.O5.2011 as illegol and prags this Court to quash and set aside the same bg holding that the petitioner is entitled for oppointment of Junior Assistant under compassionate grounds as u)o-s considered in other cases rbsued in G.O.Ms.No.1O4 dated 02.05.201 1."

2. Heard Sri R.V. Mallikarjuna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner ald learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that her father expired on

14.02.7949 in an accident while he was in service in the Police Department and at that time, petitioner was aged about 3 years and her mother being an uneducated she was not accommodated a job under compassionate grounds. It is further submitted that petitioner possessed B.A degree from Osmania University in April, 2 2OOB aIId was fully quali{ied and eligible for appointment as Junior Assistant under compassionate grouirds. It is further averred that after attaining the age of ma.jority. he made a representation to respondents to provi:le compassionate appointment as Junior Assistant, however, tht: samr: was rejected by respondent Nos.2 and 3 stating that he was aged about 3 years at the time of death of her father and compassionate appointment cannot be provided after long time.

4. It is further contended that aggrieved by the rejection orders of respon<1ent Nos.2 and 3, mother of the pe t.itioner approached Lokay'ukta through complaint No.22O9/2012/81 and while dealing vuith the complaint, the Lokayukt:r found that the department is not justified in denying the cast, of petitioner since the similarly-situated person case was conside red. by relaxing the I Rules isstred uide G.O.Ms.No.1O4 dated 02.05 2011 ald the said complaint was closed on 08.02.2013 observing that petitioner has to ventilate her grievance before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal since the issue relates to service conditions. Il is fi-rther averred that respondents did not consider the same arrd rejected the case of petitiorLer again on the same ground through the impugned \, 3 proceedings dated 16.11.2015 and the sarne was communicated through proceedings dated 2O.Ol.2Ol7 .

5. It is the main contention of petitioner that Government considered several cases like petitioner and in one such case, issued G.O.Ms.No. 104 HOME (WNT) Department dated 02.O5.2}ll relaxing Releva-nt Rules for providing compassionate appointment to one Sri T. Ratnaprabha even alter 23 years from the date of death of her father and a-lso submits that Government while rejecting her case, did not even consider their own G,O., issued in favour of other nor did not given any reason on how her case was different to that of T. Ratnaprabha and prays to allow this petition by providing appointment as Juniot Assistant under compassionate grounds.

6. On the other hand, in a counter filed by thL,respondents, it is contended that Sri T. Satyanarayan Raju, ARPC 2100 expired on

05.01.1985 and his wife Smt. T. Ratnaprabha requested for compassionate appointment on 11.08.1985 i.e., within stipulated time as per G.O.Ms.No.687 G.A.D (Serv.A) Department, dated O3.IO.1977, the Superintendent of Police, Krishna District, had forwarded the representation of the individual to the District ) 4 Collector, Krishna District, with a request to appoint her as Attender in any Social Welfare establishmenl. as there were no vacancies in District Police Office, Krishna Dir,;trict. It is further held that after lapse of 23 years, Smt. T. Ratr':aprabha submitted another application on 03.02.2008 and request.ed to provide a job to her son on compassionate grounds and the said ;:equest of the individual u,as rejected by the District Collect:r as the applicant was minor (6 years old) at the time of deattL of his father and subsequerLt requests of the individual were also rejected by the Government. It is further contended that the lrdfe of the deceased made another representation to provide job to her son in view of her poor and miserable family condition. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1O4 Home (WNT) Department dated O2.O5.2O11 for compassionate appointment to the applicant, as t she submitted the representation for compassionate appointment to herself within one year from the date of dera.th of Government employee as per Rules. Whereas, in the instant case, the dependant has not made aly representation w:.thin the stipulated time and submitted representation after prolonged period of 19 years ald 10 months, therefore, his case cannot be considered on 5 . similar grounds. It is a_lso contended that applicant relied upon G'O-Ms'No'104 dated o2.o5.20r1, but the facts are different and the same is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Hence it is requested this writ petition may be dismissed. 7. Having heard both the learned counsel ald after perusal of the record, it is clear that father of petitioner died on l4.O2.lggg while he was in service and no job under compassionate ground was provided to his mother as she is uneducated. However, petitioner, after attaining the age of majority, made a representation to respondent Nos.2 arrd 3 to provide employment to her as Junior Assistant under compassionate grounds, but respondent Nos.2 and 3 rejected the representation on the ground that she was under-aged as on the date of demise of her father a,d she does not attain majority within two years and further she submitted application for compassionate appointment after lapse of nearly 19 years and 1O months after death of her father which is also against the existing provisions under the scheme a,d a_lso against the main object of the scheme of compassionate appointment. In compliance with the directions of the Tribunat, the Department considered the representation of the individual I ( { 6 and rejected the request of the petitioner.

8. Petitioner relied on G.O.Ms.No.104 r:lated 02.O5.2oll. However, l.he facts of the said G.O. are differeni to the facts of the present case. It is also relevant to note that a:,; per the provisions of compassionate appointment, a family member hras to make a representa.tion within a period of one year from the date of death of a Government Employee for seeking emplo5rmgnl under such scheme. Ilut, in the case on hald, the request was made after 19 years and 1O months. Hence, this Court linds no merits or reasons tc, allow the prayer of petitioner with :regard to providing employme nt under compassionate grounds. 9 . With the above said observations, . this writ petition is dismissed, There shall be no order as to costs.

10. Miscellaneous applications, pending if closed. To, /f I t //TRUE COPY// I r-- DEP shall stand sD/- K. AMMAJI / UTY REGISTRAR ./ \i SECTION OFFICER iff:33Ji"'3iP"E'Y6h'-Js[*H,S?i#Ii'11131?5YfJ'"aa' Hvderabad [OUT]

3. Two CD CoPies BM "u'(rT HIGH COURT DATED:0710712025 ORDER WP.No.48155 of 2018 l \ .--:fi;T;-x '( . \ :)r' 16 SEP M )5 'it.-rci r,: () '/.:. ) ,() \, 1: \\ t DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 8n- q. 2-9 t In