Telangana High Court
V.Padma , Anuradha vs The Collector And District Magistrate ... on 15 June, 2023
Author: P.Madhavi Devi
Bench: P.Madhavi Devi
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.No. 26092 of 2021
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a declaration that the inaction of the respondents in considering her case for appointment on compassionate grounds, as her father died in harness on 05.07.2019 while working as Village Revenue Assistant (Kavalkar) in Gadisingapur Village, as illegal and arbitrary and to pass such other order or orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner's father Sri.V.Ramulu expired on 05.07.2019 and he was survived by his three daughters. It is submitted that the son of eldest daughter had made an application for compassionate appointment but when he was informed that the grandson of the deceased employee was not eligible for compassionate appointment, the eldest daughter herself made an application for compassionate appointment for herself. The same was also not considered as she was over aged by the said date. It is submitted that thereafter, the youngest daughter i.e., the petitioner herein has made an application for 2 PMD,J W.P.No. 26092 of 2021 compassionate appointment. Since that no decision was not taken by the respondents on her application, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that the date of birth of the petitioner was verified in the documents filed by the petitioner i.e., as per Aadhar Card No.282630539708 and PAN Card No.AJVPV8070D, it is mentioned as 22.04.1978 whereas in the SSC certificate her date of birth is mentioned as 09.07.1979. Further, it is also mentioned that if the date of birth as per Aadhar Card is taken i.e., 22.04.1978, the age of the petitioner would be 43 years and as per the existing rules, the age limit for SC/ST is 40 years and other Categories age limit is 35 years and therefore, the petitioner is over aged and therefore, she is not entitled for compassionate appointment. It is further stated that the petitioner, after her marriage, is residing with her in- laws at Hyderabad and that as she is not residing in the village where her father was working as Kavalkar, she is not eligible for consideration.
3
PMD,J W.P.No. 26092 of 2021
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the grounds taken by the respondents for not considering the petitioner for compassionate appointment are not reasonable. He placed reliance upon the orders of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Commissioner of Police Hyderabad City, Hyderguda, Hyderabad and others Vs. Smt.K.Padmaja in W.P.No.16242 of 2013, dated 20.06.2013 for the proposition that the age as mentioned in the SSC should be considered and not the age mentioned in the Aadhar Card. He further also placed reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.V.Shashi Kala Vs. The District Collector Anantapuram, Anantapuram District in W.P.No.41931 of 2017 dated 05.06.2018 for the proposition that the petitioner being the married daughter need not be residing with the mother to be eligible for compassionate appointment.
5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit.
6. Having regard to the rival contentions, this Court finds that the application of the petitioner has not been rejected by the authorities and therefore, the reasons given in the 4 PMD,J W.P.No. 26092 of 2021 counter affidavit cannot be taken as rejection of the application of the petitioner. The respondents are therefore directed to re- consider the application of the petitioner and shall consider the same by taking the date of birth of the petitioner as per the SSC certificate in accordance with the decisions of this Court (cited supra). As regards the objection about the not residing in her village with her mother, the respondents shall consider the application in accordance with the decision of this Court in the case of Smt.V.Shashi Kala (cited supra) in W.P.No.41931 of 2017 also and pass appropriate orders on the application of the petitioner within a period of Six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI Date: 15.06.2023 bak 5 PMD,J W.P.No. 26092 of 2021 144 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI W.P.No. 26092 of 2021 Dated: 15.06.2023 bak