Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K.Udaykiran vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 9 February, 2021
Author: Battu Devanand
Bench: Battu Devanand
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
WRIT PETITION No. 43783 of 2017
O R D E R:
The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction, preferably one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the Respondents in not appointing the petitioner as Village Revenue Officer on compassionate grounds vide endorsement L.Dis.No.A8/8346/2009 dated 21.10.2009 is illegal arbitrary and contrary to law and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to appoint the petitioner as Village Revenue Officer or in any suitable post in Revenue Department on compassionate grounds forthwith and pass such other or further orders as are necessary in the circumstances of the case.
2) A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent denying the averments made in the writ petition.
2
3) Heard Sri T. Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the 2nd respondent.
4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner, Sri Rajendra Pillai, worked as a Village Administrative Officer of Thirumalarajapuram Village, Palasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District, since 1992 onwards. The father of the petitioner died on 20.02.1999 while in service, leaving behind his wife and son. Thereafter, the petitioner and his mother are not having any livelihood since they are purely depended on the income of his father. By the date of death of his father, he was aged about 9 years and his mother being an illiterate could not make any application for appointment on compassionate grounds at that time.
5) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner passed SSC in the month of March, 2005 and due to financial difficulties, he could not 3 complete his Intermediate education and subsequent to attaining the majority, he made an application to the Respondents requesting to appoint him as Village Revenue Officer or in any other suitable post in the Revenue Department on compassionate grounds.
6) Learned counsel contends that the 2nd respondent vide his endorsement in L.Dis.A8/8346/2009, dated 21.10.2009 rejected his request on the ground that as per G.O.Rt.No.660 Revenue (VA) Dept., dt.06.07.2009, Government has accorded permission to consider the cases of the dependents of Part-time Assistants pending from 01.01.2002 for compassionate appointment of the spouse/dependent children of deceased Part-time Assistants for their appointment as Village Revenue Officer in Revenue Department and as such, the deceased Village Administrative Officer, Sri K. Rajendra Pillai date of death is 20.02.1999, the said G.O. is not applicable to consider the claim of the petitioner.
4
7) On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing for 2nd respondent submits that the father of the petitioner worked as Village Administrative Officer (Part-time) died on 20.02.1999 while in service and the family of the deceased employee are eligible for ex- gratia of Rs.25,000/- as per G.O.Ms.No.446 Revenue (VO) Dept., dt.24.07.2002. The petitioner or his mother has not applied for ex-gratia as per the said GO. All the pensioner benefits were paid to the wife of the deceased. The ex-gratia of Rs.25,000/- in lieu of compassionate appointment was not paid due to non filing of application.
8) Learned Government Pleader further submits that there is no representation for compassionate appointment either from his wife or from his son i.e., the petitioner, who was aged 9 years as on the date of death of deceased Village Administrative Officer. The petitioner has submitted his representation for appointment on compassionate grounds only on 22.08.2009. The dependant shall submit application for appointment on compassionate grounds within a period 5 of one year from the date of death of Government employee. If the dependant is a minor or he has not fulfilled educational qualification; it should be possible to them to ask for the relief within reasonable time which may be two years from the date of demise of the Government servant.
9) Learned Government Pleader further submits that the petitioner has been issued an endorsement in the year 2009 vide L.Dis.No.A8/8346/2009, dt.21.10.2009 stating that he is not eligible for compassionate appointment and the petitioner filed Writ Petition before this Court after lapse of 8 years without explaining any reasons for the said delay and hence, he sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
10) As seen from the material available on record, the father of the petitioner while working as VAO of Thirumalarajakuppam Village of Palasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District, died on 20.02.1999 while in service. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2, it is admitted by them that the wife of the deceased employee is 6 an illiterate person and his son i.e. the petitioner herein was aged about 9 years only on the date of the death of the deceased. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that there was no representation for compassionate appointment either from the wife of the deceased employee or his son within the time stipulated. It is also mentioned in the counter affidavit that the ex-gratia of Rs.25,000/- for which the family of the deceased employee is entitled in lieu of compassionate appointment was not paid due to non filing of application.
11) On perusal of these admissions in the counter affidavit, it can be concluded that the illiterate wife of the deceased employee and the 9 years old child are not aware of the fact that they have to submit an application seeking compassionate appointment within the stipulated time of one year as per the procedure and in lieu of compassionate appointment, they can submit an application for ex-gratia of Rs.25000/-, it is not justifiable to expect from the illiterate wife of the deceased employee and a minor child, who are in deep sorrow for untimely death of the bread winner of the family member to approach the respondents to submit those representations within the time stipulated. 7 In fact, in the welfare state, the respondents ought to have taken appropriate steps to intimate the family members of deceased employees particularly, when they are illiterates about the benefits available to the family members after sudden demise of the government employees.
12) Upon perusal of the G.O.Rt.No.660 Revenue (VA) Department, dated 06.07.2009, the government has decided to accord permission to consider the cases of the dependants of Part-time Assistants (former Village Administrative Offices) pending from 01.01.2002 for compassionate appointment of the spouse/dependant children of the deceased part-time assistants for their appointment as Village Revenue Officer in Revenue Department subject to the condition that the defendants should have submitted applications seeking compassionate appointments within the stipulated period of one year from the date of death of the deceased Village Administrative Officer and must possess the requisite educational qualifications, age and subject to satisfying other conditions of eligibility to Village Revenue Officer post as per Andhra Pradesh Village Revenue Officers Rules 2008. 8
13) It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner has submitted an application on 22.08.2009 requesting for compassionate appointment. It was rejected on 21.10.2009. On careful scrutiny of the date of issuance of G.O.Rt.No.660, dated 06.07.2009, the date of application of the petitioner, the date of the rejection order, it is clearly established that after issuance of G.O.Rt.No.660, dated 06.07.2009 only the petitioner submitted his application on 22.08.2009 as the government took decision only on 06.07.2009 to consider the cases of former Village Administrative Officers dependants for compassionate appointment.
14) The contention of the respondents is unfounded due to the reason that the government has taken decision to accord permission to consider the cases of the dependants of former Village Administrative Officers for compassionate appointment only on 06.07.2009, as such there is no justification in contending that the petitioner has to submit an application seeking compassionate appointment within the one year from the date of the death of the deceased employee (i.e) 20.02.1999. Even assuming that the wife of the deceased employee or his son submits an application 9 seeking for compassionate appointment immediately after the death of their bread winner, the answer of the respondents would be that there is no any provision for considering the claim of dependants of Village Administrative Officers for compassionate appointment at that time. So, it can be construed that only after the State Government took a decision by way of G.O.Rt.No.660, 06.07.2009 to provide compassionate appointment to consider the cases of dependants of former Village Administrative Officers, the petitioner submitted his application immediately on 22.08.2009. As such, rejecting the claim of the petitioner by endorsement, dated 21.10.2009 of the respondent No.2 is unreasonable and unsustainable.
15) The respondents have to understand the very purpose of providing compassionate appointment, which is meant for providing employment assistance to the dependants of the deceased employee, who died in harness and thereby to provide some relief to the family from undergoing financial sufferings. When the family of the deceased employee consisting of illiterate wife and minor child, since, they have no other source of livelihood after the untimely death of the 10 bread winner of the family, the respondents should have been much more sympathetic and practical in considering the claim of the dependants of the deceased employee for compassionate appointment.
16) In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer the case of the Balbir Kaur vs. Steel Authority of India Limited1 wherein their Lordships (U.C. Benarjee, J speaking for the Bench) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held as under:
"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 human outlook."
17) The Hon'ble Apex Court further held at para No.19 as extracted hereunder:
"The concept of social justice is the yardstick to the justice administration system or the legal justice and as Respondent pointed out that the greatest virtue of law is in its adaptability and flexibility and thus it 1 2000 (6) SCC 493 11 would be otherwise an obligation for the law courts also to apply the law depending upon the situation since the law is made for the society and whichever is beneficial for the society, the endeavour of the law court would be to administer justice having due regard in that direction."
18) Having regard to the fact that the petitioner's application was rejected by an endorsement, dated 21.10.2009 on the ground that the application was submitted beyond the stipulated time is untenable in view of the fact that the government took decision to consider the cases of the dependants of the former Village Administrative Officer for compassionate appointment was taken only by way of G.O.Rt.No.660 dated 06.07.2009 and the petitioner submitted his application immediately after issuance of G.O.Rt.No.660, dated 06.07.2009. For the above mentioned reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the application, dated 22.08.2009 submitted by the petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground that it was submitted after a lapse of time.
19) The respondents also have to keep in mind that as per Rule 12(i)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977, the counter affidavit has to be filed before this Court within 120 days from the date of 12 receipt of the notice from the Court. Though this writ petition is pertaining to the year 2017, the respondents have chosen to file counter affidavit before this Court only on 25.01.2021 with huge delay. But, they did not choose to file an application to seek the leave of this Court to file that counter affidavit with inordinate delay as stipulated in the Andhra Pradesh Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977. However, in the interest of justice, this Court considered the contentions of the respondents submitted in the said counter affidavit.
20) This Court expects from the respondents also such type of liberal approach in considering the claims of the dependants of the deceased employees for compassionate appointments. This court holds that the respondents shall consider the cases of the dependants of the employees died in harness with human touch without considering only technicalities.
21) In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer the case in the Superintending Engineer vs. V. Jaya2, wherein their 2 (2007) 6 MLJ 1011 13 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 compassionate ground to the dependant 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 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.
22) For the above mentioned reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment without reference to the objection raised in the impugned order.
14
23) In the result, this writ petition is allowed with the following directions:
(i) The impugned endorsement in L.Dis.No.A8/8346/ 2009, dated 21.10.2009 of the respondent No.2 is hereby set aside;
(ii) The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in any suitable post, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
24) There is no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ BATTU DEVANAND,J Dt. 09-02-2021 PGR 15 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND WRIT PETITION No.43783 of 2017 Dt.09.02.2021 PGR