Telangana High Court
Smt. V. Shashi Kala, D/0 Late V. Prakash ... vs The District Collector, Anantapuram, ... on 5 June, 2018
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
&
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT PETITION No.41931 OF 2017
ORAL ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Suresh Kumar Kait)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.08.2017 passed in O.A.No.1771 of 2017 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying to direct the respondents therein to consider her case for compassionate appointment in a suitable post in the place of her late father V. Prakash Babu, who expired on 27.4.2015 while in service as ARSI, has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The father of the petitioner while working as Armed Reserve Sub Inspector in the 2nd respondent-organization expired on 27.4.2015 by leaving his wife and three married daughters. After sudden demise of the father of the petitioner, her mother made a representation to the 2nd respondent for providing suitable compassionate appointment to the petitioner by enclosing all necessary documents required for the said purpose. Thereon, the 2nd respondent forwarded necessary proposals to the 1st respondent vide letter dated 17.10.2016, whereby it was stated that the father of the applicant viz., late V. Prakash Babu, ARSI, died on 27.4.2015 while in service due to ill-health and he completed more than 39 years of service in the 2nd respondent-organization and that a representation was made by his wife within the stipulated period requesting to provide compassionate appointment to one of her married 2 SKK,J & AKS,J W.P.No.41931/2017 daughters i.e., petitioner herein, and ultimately requesting for necessary action in the matter.
(ii) While matter stood thus, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapuram has requested the concerned Tahsildar to furnish social economic status report and other details of late V. Prakash Babu. Accordingly, vide his proceedings dated 24.9.2016, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapuram reported as under:
"Smt. V. Padmavathi, wife of the deceased has requested the Higher Authorities to provide to her elder daughter Smt. V. Shasikala as they are unable to sustain their livelihood in the absence of the primary bread earner of the family. Smt. V. Padmavathi is aged about 52 years. She is only legally wedded wife. She is house wife and she is having three daughters. The applicant's elder daughter Smt. V. Shasikala, age 34 years is married. Her husband is unemployee. She has completed B.Com., under distance education and she is unemployee. After getting marriage, she and her husband are living with parents. The applicant's second daughter Smt. V. Geetha, age 32 years, is married and living with her husband separately. She is house wife. The applicant's younger daughter Smt. V. Swetha, age 30 years is married and she is house wife. She is living separately with her husband.
At present, the applicant and her elder daughter and her family are living in the above address. There are no earning members in the applicant's family and not having any movable or immovable properties on the name of any one of her family members. She has no source of income, as the deceased was the sole primary bread winner of the family. The social economic status of the applicant is not sound and they are unable to sustain their livelihood in the absence of the primary bread winner of the family. There are no earning members in the family of the deceased. There are no movable and immovable properties. There are no 3 SKK,J & AKS,J W.P.No.41931/2017 Civil/Criminal cases pending/Registered against the family members.
In view of the above, the Tahsildar, Ananthapuram, has recommended for compassionate appointment to Smt. V. Shasikala on compassionate grounds."
On considering the said report and other relevant facts, the 2nd respondent vide memo dated 25.01.2017 rejected the claim of the applicant by recording as under:
"In this connection, I am informed that the candidate Smt. V. Shasikala, married daughter of late V. Prakash Babu, ARSI-164 is found not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of the Government instructions issued vide memo No.406/10/A1/Admn.II/2004/Fin.(Admn.),dated 20.3.2004."
(iii) Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the same before the learned Tribunal in O.A.No.1771 of 2017 and the said O.A. was dismissed by recording as under:
"It is contended by the applicant's counsel that Revenue Divisional Officer, Ananthapuramu, addressed letter to the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.E/2008/2016, dated 24.9.2016 stating that after getting married, the applicant and her husband are living with parents, since the applicant as well as her husband were unemployed and were not having any properties and no source of livelihood for them. The 2nd respondent did not place any reliance on the said Certificate. This Tribunal is of the opinion that the 2nd respondent did not place any reliance on the said letter of Revenue Divisional officer, since the same is not borne out by any recorded proof. Even when this Tribunal directed the applicant to submit documents like Ration Card and Election Identity Card relating to the period when her father was alive, the applicant could not produce any such card to prove that she was residing jointly along with her father and also 4 SKK,J & AKS,J W.P.No.41931/2017 her husband was living with her father. The applicant produced only copy of Aadhaar Card dated 28.5.2015. The said Aadhaar Card is subsequent to death of the applicant's father. Aadhaar Card gives only address of the applicant and it does not give any other details whether she is residing with her father and whether address mentioned therein was the address of her father. In Aadhaar Card, she was described as only daughter of V. Prakash Babu. She is not described as wife of her husband. It is not the applicant's case that she is residing separately from her husband, in her father's house. In the absence of proof of dependency of the applicant on her deceased father during his life time, it cannot be said that she is a dependant on the deceased Government Servant by the date of death, as required in the Government Memo dated 20.3.2004.
The applicant's counsel placed reliance on the decision of our High Court in W.P.No.16242 of 2013. In the said decision, the High Court had no occasion to consider and decide the issue in the light of Government Memo No.406/10/A.1/Admn.II/2004, Fin (Admn.II), dated 20.3.2004. Therefore, the said decision cannot be applied to the present case wherein the 2nd respondent had returned proposals for compassionate appointment of the applicant, invoking the said Government Memo, dated 20.3.2004."
3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner was rejected basing on the Government Memo No.406 dated 20.3.2004 and on the ground that the petitioner being married daughter, who is not dependant upon the deceased employee, is not entitled for compassionate appointment. The learned Counsel further submits that the similar facts and the aforesaid memo came before this Court in W.P.No.16242 of 2013 and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court while directing the petitioner-authority therein to give compassionate appointment to the respondent therein. 5
SKK,J & AKS,J W.P.No.41931/2017
4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Services submits that the petitioner is a married daughter and she failed to produce any of the documents to prove that before the death of the deceased, she was staying with the deceased depending upon his earnings and that the respondents asked the petitioner to produce the documents to establish that she was the dependant and was staying with the deceased at the time of his death, however, she failed to do so, and therefore, the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner, and the learned Tribunal also dismissed the claim of the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader further submits that there is no material in the present case and therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. We have perused the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.16242 of 2013. In the said case, the respondent-applicant was married daughter and she failed to produce any proof to show that she was staying with the deceased father at the time of his death. Further, the respondent-applicant in the said case was residing in a separate house along with her husband and was eking her livelihood by sewing the garments, and despite that, this Court held as under:
"Even if the applicant is residing in a separate house that by itself, is not a ground to reject the claim of appointment. So far as the income of the applicant is concerned, it is proved that she is not having any independent income to live on her own and she is also taking care of the mother (widow of the deceased employee). No valid reasons were recorded by the authorities to reject the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment."
6. We further note that in the aforesaid case, the respondent-applicant therein challenged Memo No.406, dated 20.3.2004 based upon the other 6 SKK,J & AKS,J W.P.No.41931/2017 facts. In the present case, in the report filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on social and economic status of the petitioner, it is specifically stated that the widow of the deceased employee is having three daughters, and all daughters are married, and the petitioner, who is the elder daughter of the deceased employee, along with her husband was staying with the deceased at the time of his death and the other two daughters of the deceased employee were staying with their respective husbands separately. In the said report, it is further stated that the petitioner and her mother are living in the address whereat the deceased used to stay, and that there are no earning members in the applicant's family and there are no movable or immovable properties in the name of any of the family members of the applicant and that she has no source of income as the deceased was the sole bread winner of the family, and the social economic status of the applicant is not sound and they are unable to sustain their livelihood in the absence of the primary bread winner of the family. Accordingly, the Revenue Divisional Officer recommended the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.
7. We note in the rejection order that the respondent-authority has simply mentioned that the petitioner is not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of Government Instructions issued vide Memo No.406, dated 20.3.2004. On perusal of the said memo, it is clear that there are three pre-conditions for getting compassionate appointment especially, when the applicant is a married daughter. They are as under:
"(i) There should be no younger or older unmarried dependants in the family and the spouse should be unwilling or ineligible for appointment.7
SKK,J & AKS,J W.P.No.41931/2017
(ii) The married daughter should be dependant on her father/mother who was a Government Employee/deceased Government employee.
(iii) There is no objection to consider one of the married daughters if there are more than one married daughters as long as the condition Nos.1 and 2 are fulfilled." In the present case, undisputedly the petitioner is the elder daughter of the deceased and she along with her husband is staying at the place of the deceased even after her marriage. In the society, there are two types of families - one is wealthy and the other is poor. The wealthy people ask their daughters after marriage either to stay with them or to stay separately by making necessary arrangements. In the second category, the daughters continue to stay with their parents depending upon their income even after their marriage when they do not have source of income. The present case is of the second category. As stated by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the petitioner has been staying with the widow of the deceased, and even after marriage, the petitioner along with her husband is depending upon the earnings of the deceased. The said fact has not been rebutted by the respondents. But the respondents rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that her case is not covered in terms of Memo No.406 dated 20.3.2004, whereas the similar issue has been considered by this Court in W.P.No.16242 of 2013 as mentioned above. It is pertinent to mention that the learned Counsel for the petitioner before the Tribunal has mentioned about the case of this Court decided in W.P.No.16242 of 2013, wherein the memo and the social and economic conditions of the respondent-applicant therein were considered by this Court. However, the learned Tribunal ignored those facts and rejected the application filed by the petitioner herein.
8
SKK,J & AKS,J W.P.No.41931/2017
8. We are of the considered view that the case of the petitioner herein is on a better footing than the respondent-applicant in W.P.No.16242 of 2013 and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed in a suitable post on compassionate grounds. The proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 25.1.2017 are set aside. Consequently, the order of the Tribunal dated 1.8.2017 in O.A.No.1771 of 2017 is set aside. We hereby direct the respondents-authorities to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds in a suitable post and issue appointment letter to her, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________ JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT ___________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Dated: 5th June, 2018.
Nn.
9
SKK,J & AKS,J W.P.No.41931/2017 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.41931 of 2017 (Oral order delivered by the Hon'ble Sri Justice Suresh Kumar Kait) 05/06/2018 Nn.