APHC010118932025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 6209/2025 Between: Matla Tulasi and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. Madderla Vengaiah Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) 2. T B L MURTHY 2 HCGR, J W.P.No.6209 of 2025 The Court made the following order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- “…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned Order No.COVIJ: HRM: 45925 :: 434 : 2023 dated 09.10.2023 from the file of 3rd Respondent and after perusing the same, set aside the impugned Order dt.09.10.2023 by declaring it as arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to law and consequently direct the Respondents to consider and appoint 2nd Petitioner herein on compassionate grounds in any suitable post with all other consequential benefits monetary or otherwise…” 2. Heard Sri K.Koutilya, learned counsel on behalf of Sri Madderla Vengaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt Umadevi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri T.B.L.Murthy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. 3. The husband of the 1st petitioner, who was appointed as daily wage worker in the respondent-Bank in the year 1980 came to be regularized in the year 1987 in the cadre of Peon. He was promoted as Head Clerk in the year 1988. During Covid Pandamic-2019, he succumbed on 16.08.2020. He survived by the 1st petitioner-wife and three sons. On account of his death, the petitioners’ submitted application dated 31.05.2021 to the 3rd respondent claiming compassionate appointment for the 2nd petitioner. The same came to be rejected by impugned order dated 09.10.2023, which was issued 3 HCGR, J W.P.No.6209 of 2025 by the 3rd respondent. Petitioners’ have submitted representation dated 09.07.2024 to the Managing Director to re-consider the aforesaid decision which is as stated to be pending. The Deputy General Manager, by proceedings dated 18.07.2024 informed that petitioners’ request dated 09.07.2024 to re-consider the earlier rejection cannot be accepted in view of policy of the Bank and that they would not entertain any further representations in that regard. However, petitioner has once again submitted representation dated 30.09.2024 to the 2nd respondent, which is pending and as no further orders are passed, the petitioners preferred the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the application of the petitioners for compassionate appointment ought to have been considered in accordance with procedure set out in Clause 1 of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in Public Sector Banks (w.e.f.5.08.2014 vide Ministry of Finance D.O.F.No.18/2/2013-IR dated 7.8.2014) issued vide Circular No.CIR/HR&IR/2014-15/532/476, dated 11.08.2014. However, the respondents without regard to the same have summarily rejected the application and that too the 3rd respondent by impugned order dated 09.10.2023 has communicated the decision of competent authority, without providing any reasons for coming to such conclusion. 4 HCGR, J W.P.No.6209 of 2025 5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents has placed on record the written instructions stating that the petitioners’ application has been considered and rejected by competent authority. However, the decision of the same has been communicated through the 3rd respondent and further that the reasons assigned in the impugned order that the petitioners have not satisfied the condition that they were in dire financial crisis. Therefore, rightly application has been rejected. 6. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 7. It is not in dispute that the 1st petitioner’s husband working with Bank died in harness and as per the scheme of compassionate appointment as applicable to the respondent-Bank, the petitioners are entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment, however, subject to the guidelines and conditions applicable. The application of petitioners has been rejected and by impugned proceedings dated 09.10.2023, the 3rd respondent has communicated that the competent authority has rejected the case of the petitioners’ based on material available on record, without having observed that they did not satisfy the financial condition criteria prescribed under the scheme. However, a perusal of scheme, in particular Clause 12, which provides for consideration of application, 5 HCGR, J W.P.No.6209 of 2025 contemplate that the application has to be first placed before the committee constituting of three officers, who after evaluating the financial condition and other criteria for consideration of compassionate appointment have to make recommendations to the competent authority, if required after hearing the applicants and on such recommendations, the competent authority has to take a decision. The impugned order does not indicate as to whether such exercise has been undertaken, except stating that competent authority has taken a final decision. Even otherwise, the decision of a competent authority has not been communicated to the petitioners, in order them to know the reasons for coming to such conclusion. 8. The learned Standing Counsel has placed on record inter- office memo dated 11.09.2023, even according to which, the competent authority has not provided or recorded any reasons much less stating that the decision was taken place on recommendations made by the committee. 9. In view of the matter, this Court finds that the respondents have completely in violation to the procedure contemplated under scheme and have embarked on rejecting the application of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned 6 HCGR, J W.P.No.6209 of 2025 order passed by the 3rd respondent and remanding the matter back to the respondents for re-consideration. 10. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order No.COVIJ : HRM : 45925 :: 434 : 2023, dated 09.10.2023 passed by the 3rd respondent and matter is remanded back to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioners in terms of Clause 12 of Circular No. CIR/HR&IR/2014- 15/532/476, dated 11.08.2014 and dispose the same by passing speaking order, within a period of eight (08) weeks, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 24.04.2025 JLV