RRR,J & TCDS,J WA_376_2021 1 APHC010223632021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT APPEAL NO: 376/2021 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to suspend the order of the learned Hon'ble Judge passed in W.P.No. 43783 of 2017, dt. 09.02.2021 and pass Between: 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH,, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, THULLUR MANDAL AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,, CHITTOOR DISTRICT CHITTOOR ...APPELLANT(S) AND 1.SRI K UDAY KIRAN, S/o K. Rajendra, 19 years R/o Battinavaripalle Village, Gadanki post, Pakala Mandal, Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENT RRR,J & TCDS,J WA_376_2021 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the orders passed by learned single judge in WP.No.43783 of 2017, dated 09- 02-2021 pending disposal of the writ appeal and pass Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I (AP) Counsel for the Respondent: 1.BANDI SRIHARI The Court made the following: RRR,J & TCDS,J WA_376_2021 3 RRR,J & TCDS,J WA_376_2021 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAO RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WRIT APPEAL No.376 OF 2021 JUDGMENT:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.C.D. Sekhar) 1. The present writ appeal is directed against order dated 09.02.2021 passed in WP No.43783 of 2017. 2. The respondent preferred the above petition questioning the endorsement L.Dis.A8/8346/2009, dated 21.10.2009 where under his request to appoint him as Village Revenue Officer or in any suitable post in revenue department on compassionate grounds was rejected. 3. It is the case of the respondent that his father late Sri Rajendra Pillai worked as Village Administrative Officer, Thimmalarajupuram Village, Palasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District. He joined as such on 07.03.1992, later after working for 6 years 11 months the said Rajendra Pillai died while in service, leaving behind his wife and the respondent. 4. It is further case of the 1st respondent that at the time of death of his father he was aged about nine (09) years and his RRR,J & TCDS,J WA_376_2021 5 mother being illiterate could not make any application for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is further stated that the 1st respondent after passing SSC in March, 2005 made an application on 22.08.2009 requesting the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Village Revenue Officer or any suitable post in Revenue Department on compassionate grounds. The request of the 1st respondent was rejected by virtue of endorsement dated 21.10.2009 on the ground that as per G.O.Ms.No.660 Revenue (VA), Dept., dated 06.07.2009, government had accorded permission to consider the cases of the dependents of Part-time Assistants pending from 01.01.2002 for compassionate appointment of the spouse/dependent children of the deceased Part-time Assistants for their appointment as Village Revenue Officer in Revenue Department. Since the father of the respondent had died on 20.02.1999, the application made by him cannot be considered on compassionate grounds. 5. The learned Single Judge of this Court after hearing the writ petition, by order dated 09.02.2021 set aside the impugned endorsement by directing the appellants to consider the claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment in any other suitable RRR,J & TCDS,J WA_376_2021 6 post within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 6. The order of the learned Single Judge was challenged on the ground that the respondent did not submit any representation within the stipulated period for one (1) year from the date of death of his father and admittedly he filed application on 22.08.2009 after attaining majority. It is further stated that as on the date of making application the 1st respondent was aged 19 years 3 months and he did not file the said application immediately after attaining majority. It is further stated that the government by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.14 Revenue (VO) Department, dated 15.01.2002, rescinded the Andhra Pradesh Village Administrative Officer Service Rules, 1990 issued in G.O.Ms.No.943, Revenue (VO) Department, dated 07.11.1990. Further, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.446 Revenue (VO) Department, dated 24.07.2002 the government sanctioned an ex gratia of Rs.25,000/- to the dependents of the VAO’s who died in harness in lieu of the compassionate appointment. 7. It is further stated that while allowing the writ petition, the learned single judge did not take into consideration the contentions raised by the appellants. RRR,J & TCDS,J WA_376_2021 7 8. Heard Sri Raju Gubbala, learned Government Pleader for Services for appellants and Sri Bandi Srihari, counsel for respondent. 9. Perused material available on record. 10. It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner worked as Village Administrative Officer from 07.03.1992 till his demise on 20.02.1999. On perusal of the record, it is clear that the respondent made application on 22.08.2009 seeking to appoint him as Village Revenue Officer or any other suitable post in revenue department. The said request of the petitioner was rejected by the appellants through endorsement dated 21.10.2009. Further, on perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, nothing is forthcoming as to why the said endorsement was not challenged immediately thereafter. The writ petition was filed in the year 2017 after long lapse of eight (08) years from the date of endorsement. As already stated absolutely no explanation is offered by the petitioner in this regard. In the absence of any explanation with regard to the delay in approaching this Court, the writ petition is liable to be rejected on the ground of latches. RRR,J & TCDS,J WA_376_2021 8 11. Apart from the same, as rightly pointed out by the counsel for appellants that by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 15.01.2002, the government had rescinded the Andhra Pradesh Village Administrative Officer Service Rules, 1990 issued in G.O.Ms.No.943 Revenue (VO), Department dated 07.11.1990. Thereafter, the government issued another G.O.Ms.No.446, dated 24.07.2002 whereby and whereunder ordered to sanction an ex gratia of Rs.25,000/- to the dependents of the VAO’s who died in harness in lieu of the compassionate appointments. While, passing the order under challenge, the learned Single Judge of this Court did not consider the above Governmental orders. Therefore, the question of considering the request of the respondent for compassionate appointment does not arise. 12. The scheme of employment on compassionate grounds has been evolved to help dependents of employees who die or become totally and permanently disabled while in harness, and to overcome the immediate financial difficulties on account of sudden stoppage of the main source of income. In the case on hand, the father of the respondent had expired in the year 1999 and whereas the application was filed on 22.08.2009 i.e., after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.660 Revenue (VA) Dept., dated 06.07.2009, RRR,J & TCDS,J WA_376_2021 9 whereunder permitted compassionate appointments to dependents of Part-time Assistants (former VAO’s) whose cases were pending from 01.01.2002 onwards. The request of the petitioner was rejected as his case does not fall under the said executive fiat. 13. Further, while considering the case of compassionate appointment, it has to borne in mind that dehors the statutory regulations/instructions, the same cannot be allowed, especially after a long lapse of time. In the case on hand, the request of the petitioner was rejected in the year 2009 and the writ petition was filed in 2017 and if the same is allowed at this length of time, it would directly in conflict with “equality” guarantee under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Further, appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right unless he is otherwise eligible. 14. For the above said reasons, the order of the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside and the writ appeal is allowed, consequently the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent is hereby dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. RRR,J & TCDS,J WA_376_2021 10 As a sequel, pending applications, if any shall stand closed. JUSTICE RAO RAGHUNANDAN RAO JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 26.09.2025 DR RRR,J & TCDS,J WA_376_2021 11 15 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WA No.376 of 2021 Date 26.09.2025 DR