B. Anjaneya Siva Prasad vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION No.29525 of 2022 ORDER :

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-

"…to issue appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus the declaring the Endorsement i e Roc No 205892/2018/C1 dt 3 6 2022 issued by the 2nd Respondent is arbitrary illegal Violation of principals of Natural justice besides infraction of Article 21 of the Constitution of India consequently set aside the same and also direct the 2nd Respondent to dispose of the petitioners Representation dt 1 8 2022 afresh for Compassionate Appointment and pass such other order or orders……."

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's mother namely Smt B.Nagamma, W/o B. Nagendra Rao, worked as a Public Health Worker, 7th Division, Public Health Branch, Guntur Municipal Corporation and she was a permanent employee in the 2nd respondent corporation. Initially her mother was appointed as Public Health Worker on 25.5.1992 and while she was in service she died on 7.2.2018. It is further stated that her father was bed ridden due to paralysis about 8 years back and died on 6.10.2021.

It is further stated that along with the petitioner, the following members are the children of late B. Nagamma.

1. Bangaru Krishna Murthy (son), (2) Nimmakayala Naga Lakshmi (daughter), (3) Singampalli Lakshmi (daughter), (4) Nimmakayala Hymavati (daughter), (5) Danala Durga (daughter) and (6) Bangaru Vijaya Lakshmi.

Later, the petitioner made an application dated 18.5.2018 seeking for compassionate appointment due to death of her mother to the 2nd respondent by enclosing relevant documents. The petitioner has completed B.Com degree from Acharya Nagarjuna University and he is possessing all pre-requisite qualifications for compassionate appointment. Though the petitioner made several requests to the 2nd respondent for consideration of her case, they have issued the impugned Endorsement vide Roc.o.205892/2018/C1, dated 03.06.2022 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. No counter affidavit is filed by the respondens.

4. Heard Mr. Maheswara Rao Kunchem, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-IV and Mr. K. Sreedhar

2

Murthy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

5. There is no dispute that the petitioner is the son of the deceased Government Employee. The family member Certificate dated 13.04.2018 and No Objection Certificate dated 13.07.2022 from other family members, which is filed along with material papers at page No.28 reveals that the other family members stated that the petitioner is also one of the family member/legal heir and they have stated that if compassionate appointment given to their brother Bangaru Anjaneya Siva Prasad, i.e., the petitioner herein, they have no objection.

6. The object 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 relief 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 the one of the dependents of the deceased employee to look after the family. While the State Government and its instrumentalities implementing the scheme of compassionate appointments to help the destitute families of the deceased employees, but incorporating such clause in eligibility criteria is appears to be illegal and unjust.

7. On careful examination of the object of the scheme of compassionate appointment provided to the dependents of the Government employees, who die in harness, it has to be noted that with a noble object to help the families in distress of deceased employees, this scheme was introduced by the Government which is laudable. The respondents ought to have considered the situation of the family of the deceased employee in a sympathetic way and with human touch and not only being followed by the technicalities.

8. The view of this Court had fortified from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Balbir Kaur vs. Steel

4

Authority of India Limited¹, in which their Lordships held as hereunder:

"In the case of appointment considering the social and" economic justice as enshrined in the constitution, denials of deserving cases are liable to be set aside. Further, the purpose of providing compassionate ground to a son or daughter or a near relative of the deceased government servant is to render assistance to the family, which is found in indigenous circumstances. Hence, in considering the case for compassionate appointment, the authorities are supposed to adopt a humane outlook."

9. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer the case in the Superintending Engineer vs. V. Jaya², wherein their Lordships comprising a Division Bench of Madras High Court have held at para No.7 as extracted hereunder:

"7. However, in a case of request for appointment on compassionate ground, however, the Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot ignore the very purpose of providing employment $on$ dependant compassionate ground to the $of$ $an$ employee/government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else as it is done so in order to mitigate the hardship to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. The concept of compassionate employment is intended to alleviate the distress of the family and it is for such purpose appointments are permissible and provided even in the rules and regulations and any rigid approach or too technical

$(2000)$ 6 SCC 493

$\overline{2}$ (2007) 6 MLI 1011

objections may defeat the very object of the scheme. It is for that purpose while considering the request for compassionate appointment; the authorities are expected to act as a Good Samaritan overlooking the cobwebs of technicalities."

10. In view of the foregoing reasons and in view of the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above, this Court deems fit to allow the present writ petition with the following directions;

• (i) The impugned Endorsement vide Roc.No.205892/2018/C1, daed 03.06.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent is hereby set aside.
• (ii) The 2nd respondent shall consider the case of the petitioner in view of the representation dated 01.08.2022 submitted by him and provide appointment to the petitoiner in any suitable post on compassionate grounds, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

Date : -09-2022

Gvl

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION No.29525 of 2022

Date : .09.2022

Gvl