Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
T. Ghanshyam vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. on 3 November, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(3)ALD54
ORDER
1. In this Writ Petition the issue that arises for consideration by this Court would be whether the benefits extended to the employees working in Governmental Educational Institutions, more so, with regard to the appointment of the children of the Government employees retired on medical grounds as provided in G.O.Ms.No.504, GAD, dated 30-7-1980 can be extended to the children of the employees working under the private aided educational Institutions.
2. The facts leading to the filing of this case are that the petitioner's father who was working as Attender in the 3rd respondent-College sought retirement on the ground of medical invalidation on 21-3-1996. Three months thereafter, (i.e.) on 22-6-1996 he died. At the time of retirement, on medical invalidation, of the petitioner's father, an application was submitted on behalf of the petitioner for appointment as Attender on 24-1-1996 on par with the children of the employees working in the Government and educational institutions who retired on medical grounds. But the request of the petitioner was rejected by the Government on 3-7-1996 on the ground that the benefits provided under G.O.Ms.No. 504, dated 30-7-1980 are applicable only to the children of the employees working in the Governmental educational institutions and they were not extended to the staff working under the private educational institutions. Questioning the said order the present Writ Petition was filed.
3. While admitting the Writ Petition, by an order dated 13-10-1996 I observed that if the Counter is not filed by the Government within two weeks from that date, it is deemed that the G.O.Ms. No. 504, GAD, dated 30-7-1980 is applicable to the employees working in Aided Institutions also and the case of the petitioner has to be considered for appointment. Even then the respondents did not move in the matter. In those circumstances, the Writ Petitioner filed Contempt Case No. 1268 of 1997. While reiterating their stand, the second respondent filed a counter stating that the case of the petitioner was considered as a special cose and proposals were sent to the Government for his appointment and the same is pending with the Government. In these circumstances by order dated 17-09-1997 I directed the Government to take a decision and place the same before the Court within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. When the matter came up again for consideration on 30-9-1997, the learned Government Pleader produced the orders issued by the Government rejecting the request of the petitioner on the ground that the benefit cannot be extended to the children of the employees working in the Private Aided Institutions. As the reasoning offered by the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner is not satisfactory to the Court, the Government was directed to file a counter explaining their stand why the benefit under this particular G.O. was not extended while extending all other benefits on par with the employees working in the Governmental educational institutions. Now the learned Government Pleader produced a Memo No. 2104/CE.II.2/96-8, dated 29-10-1997 wherein the Secretary to the Government stated that the Government was pleased to extend certain benefits to the children of the employees working in private educational institutions on par with the Government employees, the benefit of providing job to the children of the employees retired from service on medical grounds was not extended because of the reason that in case of Government employees several educational institutions are functioning in the entire state and the employment opportunities will be more and if such benefit is extended to the employees working in the private aided institutions as the appointments have to be made institution-wise, then the possibility of sufficient number of vacancies arising is very remote. Hence the Government felt it desirable not to extend the said benefit to those employees. The Secretary went on stating that the Government has decided to examine this aspect now. In his own words he stated that "this aspect will be examined by the Government in consultation with other concerned Departments and after obtaining orders in circulation to the concerned Minister/Chief Minister and appropriate orders will be issued in the matter. For taking a final view in this regard after detailed examination of all aspects as suggested above, it will take approximately two months time." I have no hesitation to say that bureaucracy having master-minded the art of building up the files without taking any decision has come up with this letter to multiply the miseries of the petitioner. If there is any sincerity on the part of the Government Officials, the Commissioner of Collegiate Education 1-1/2 years back, in his letter Rc.No.1653/PC.II-1/87, dated 14-2-1996 recommended to the Government for extension of the benefit, provided in G.O.Ms.No. 504, GAD, dated 30-7-1980 to the employees working in the private educational institutions also and nothing prevented the Government from taking a decision all these months. Surprisingly now the Secretary comes up with letter even after this Court expressed unhappiness and distress over the manner in which the issue of the petitioner is being dealt with by the respondents and states that the subject-matter has still to be dealt with by the Government. Hence I am not inclined to grant any more time as requested by the respondents and intend to proceed to dispose of the Writ Petition on merits.
4. From the above narration of the facts it is seen that the only reason given by the Government in not extending the benefit that is being available to the Government employees contained in G.O.Ms.No. 504, dated 30-7-1980 is mat while the unit of appointment in case of Government employees is more than one institution, in case of private educational institutions, each institution alone and when once unit of appointment is only an institution, the possibility of creating/arising the cadre strength is being limited. The required number of vacancies may not arise to consider the case of the children of the employees retired on medical grounds. At the same time the respondents in so many words agreed that the benefit of providing employment to the children of the employees who died in harness is made applicable to the private educational institutions. When once the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds is extended, I do not see any reason for not extending the benefit available for the children of the Government employees retired on medical grounds to the staff working in the private aided educational institutions. Hence the action of the respondents in rejecting the request of the petitioner for appointment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.504, dated 30.07.1980 is the result of non-application of mind on the part of officials of the Government and the same is suffered from arbitrary exercise of powers vested in them. Time and again the Courts in the Country held that arbitrariness in the action on the part of the Government officials is antitheses to the constitutional scheme as contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside.
5. The case of the petitioner deserves consideration also on the ground that the petitioner's father who has taken retirement on medical invalidation died within three months after retirement. Hence his death has to be considered as a death in harness. In the light of that, if such a view is, taken, the petitioner is entitled to get appointment on compassionate grounds as the same is very much available even for the staff working in private educational institutions. In fact having realised this aspect, the second respondent in the Counter filed categorically stated that the case of the petitioner would be considered as a special case and proposals were sent to the Government for his appointment. In the light of the above, a Writ of Mandamus shall issue to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Class IV employee within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.
7. As the main writ petition itself is disposed of with the above directions, I am not inclined to proceed with the Contempt Case. Accordingly the Contempt Case is closed.