Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Apgenco, vs U A P Sarma on 15 March, 2021
Author: Arup Kumar Goswami
Bench: Arup Kumar Goswami, C. Praveen Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.136 of 2021
(Taken up through video conferencing)
APGENCO, Vidyuth Soudha,
Gunadala, Vijayawada,
Rep.by its Managing Director
and two others. .. Appellants
Versus
U.A.P.Sarma S/o. late U.V.Ramana,
Aged about 37 years,
r/o. D.No.4096-10/4,
Gopalakrishna Nagar, Sujatha Nagar,
Visakhapatnam. ..Respondent
Counsel for the Appellants : Mr.M.Vidyasagar
Counsel for Respondent : Mr.V.S.K.Rama Rao
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 15.03.2021 (Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ) Heard Mr.M.Vidyasagar, learned standing counsel for the appellants.
2. Also heard Mr.V.S.K.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner.
3. This Writ Appeal was presented against the order dated 19.01.2021 passed in W.P.No.22949 of 2012, whereby the learned single Judge set aside the letters dated 04.06.2008 and 15.07.2008, by which the application of the writ petitioner for consideration of his case for compassionate appointment was rejected, and a further direction was issued to the respondents (appellants herein) to issue compassionate 2 appointment to the writ petitioner as per his qualifications in any suitable post, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
4. Prior to the institution of W.P.No.22949 of 2012, the writ petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.15047 of 2005, assailing the rejection of his case for compassionate appointment vide order dated 07.11.2003, with a further prayer to direct the respondents therein to appoint him on compassionate ground. The said writ petition was allowed by an order dated 31.03.2008.
5. The sole ground advanced in support of the appeal is that father of the writ petitioner did not have five years service left from the date he was relieved on medical invalidation and, therefore, the writ petitioner was not entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment.
6. In the context of the above argument, it would be necessary to extract the order dated 31.03.2008, passed in W.P.No.15047 of 2005, in its entirety:
"It appears, petitioner's father while working in the Respondent Organisation was made to retire on 6.4.2001 on medical grounds with a promise that his son will be provided with employment since there was a scheme available during the year 2001. However, when the petitioner made representation to the respondents for providing employment on compassionate grounds, his case was rejected on the ground that his father was having only 4 years, 10 months balance service left over as on the date of his retirement on medical invalidation. According to the respondents, unless one has a left over service of five years or more, his children are not entitled for claiming compassionate appointment. This appears to be not correct in the light of the counter filed by the 3 respondents. At paragraph 4 of the counter filed on behalf of respondents, it is stated that petitioner's father was relieved of his duties with effect from 31.8.2001 A.N. at the first instance. Later, revised relief orders were issued duly allowing him to retire with effect from 6.4.2001 F.N. and he has not joined duty earlier to his medical examination and report vide Memo dated 10.4.2002. Further, before submitting pension papers, petitioner's father expired on 26.10.2001. The pension was sanctioned with effect from 6.4.2001 and the benefits were passed on to his wife.
These admitted averments would indicate that the father of the petitioner was made to retire on medical grounds with effect from 6.4.2001 and not on 31.8.2001 and if 6.4.2001 is taken into consideration, petitioner's father had more than five years left over service after retirement on medical grounds. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the rejection of case of the petitioner on the ground that his father had left over service of less than five years is not correct, therefore, rejection of petitioner's claim on that ground is not tenable and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. (emphasis supplied by us) In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for providing employment in any suitable post in the Respondent Organisation on compassionate grounds and pass appropriate orders, as per law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. No order as to costs."4
7. A perusal of the above order would go to show that this Court had recorded the finding that the rejection of the case of the writ petitioner on the ground that his father had left over service of less than five years, is not correct and, therefore, rejection of petitioner's claim on that ground is not tenable. The said order was not carried in appeal and the order has attained finality.
8. In the letter dated 04.06.2008, which gave rise to filing of the writ petition, out of which this present appeal arises, the Joint Secretary (Per), while rejecting the case of the petitioner stated as follows:
"xxxxxx xxxxxx
3) Whereas; the orders issued by the SE/O&M/Mothugudem permitting Sri U.V.Ramana to get relieved off his duties from service with effect from 31.08.2001 on medical invalidation is in accordance with the Sub-Regulation - 15(b) of Regulation 35 of APSEB Leave Regulations as adopted by APGENCO and as further clarified in the orders issued in the memo dt:24.05.1999.
As per the said clarificatory order, Sri U.V.Ramana, Ex- HS.Gr.II has been found not having 5 years left over service from the date of his relief on medical invalidation."
(emphasis supplied by us)
9. A perusal of the above order would go to show that the Joint Secretary (Per) had over-reached the orders of this Court and had recorded a finding that the father of the writ petitioner was found to be not having five years left over service from the date of his relieve on medical invalidation, contrary to what has been recorded by this Court. The order 5 of the Joint Secretary (Per) is sub-versive and antagonistic to rule of law and cannot receive judicial imprimatur.
10. The learned single Judge also took note of the aforesaid judgment rendered in W.P.No.15047 of 2005 and in paras 12 and 13 held as follows:
"12) The petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected vide letter, dated 07.11.2003 on the ground that the father of the petitioner had left over service of less than five years. The petitioner filed W.P.No.15047 of 2005 and the same was allowed by order, dated 31.03.2008 by this Court.
While allowing the said writ petition, this Court had taken into consideration the averments of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in which it was stated that though the petitioner's father was relieving of his duties with effect from 31.08.2001 A.N. at first instance, later, revised relieved order was issued duly allowing him to retire with effect from 06.04.2001. This Court also noted that before submitting pension papers, petitioner's father expired on 26.10.2001 and the pension was sanctioned with effect from 06.04.2001 and the benefits were passed on to his wife. Considering all these aspects, this Court while allowing the writ petition held that the rejection of case of the petitioner on the ground that his father had left over service of less than five years is not correct, therefore, rejection of petitioner's claim on that ground is not tenable and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for providing employment in any suitable post in the respondents organization on compassionate grounds. The orders of this Court and its findings have become final, as no appeal is filed against this order by the respondents.
6
13) In view of the fact that in the order, dated 31.03.2008 in W.P.No.15047 of 2005, this Court held that the stand of the respondents that the father of the petitioner had left over service of less than five years is not correct and not tenable and the impugned order in which the grounds are raised by the respondents is set aside, the action of the respondents in raising the same grounds to reject the claim of the petitioner in the impugned proceedings is illegal and contrary to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.15047 of 2005. As and when the respondents issued Memo No.DE/SLR/C1/448, dated 10.04.2002 and sanctioned the pension basing on the said memo, taking contrary stand to their earlier actions/decisions is not permissible under law."
11. We are of the considered opinion that the appellants have filed this appeal on no good ground. At the time of argument also, the learned standing counsel for the appellants kept on reiterating that according to the understanding of the appellants, the father of the writ petitioner did not have left over service of five years, completely overlooking the fact that a finding to the contrary had been recorded by this Court in the earlier round of litigation.
12. In view of the above, finding no merits, we dismiss this appeal with costs of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to be paid to the writ petitioner.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
GM