APHC010348392021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] FRIDAY, THE THIRTYFIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 629/2021 Between: B. Ravanamma ... Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Insurance Medical Services Department, A.P.Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, and others ... Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri N. Ramesh Counsel for respondents : The Government Pleader for Services - II This Court made the following: 2 JS,J W.P.(AT) No.629 of 2021 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to set aside the proceedings in Rc.No.2551/E3/2015, dated 05.01.2016, issued by the 3rd respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and consequently, to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment with all consequential benefits. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: 2. The petitioner’s mother died on 21-5-2012 while serving as a Thoty at the ESI Dispensary in Gandhinagaram, Visakhapatnam. She left behind her husband, four sons, and two daughters. i) The petitioner’s husband is physically handicapped, suffers from health problems, and is unemployed. The petitioner resided with her parents, and after her mother’s death, she took care of her father. ii). The 3rd respondent in Rc.No.2551/E3/2015, dated 05.01.2016, rejected the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment on the grounds that the spouse of the deceased employee is a pensioner and the petitioner is not financially dependent on the deceased. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3 JS,J W.P.(AT) No.629 of 2021 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleaderfor Services-II appearing for the respondents and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in G.O.Ms.No.350, General Administration (SER.A), dated 30.07.1999, clarifications were issued for the appointment of a married daughter under compassionate grounds. Clause (4) of the said G.O. is extracted below: “When there is only a married daughter to the deceased government employee without older or younger brothers or sisters and the spouse of the deceased government employee is not willing to avail the compassionate appointment such married daughter may be considered for compassionate appointment provided she is dependent on the deceased government employee and subject to the satisfying the other conditions and instructions issued on the scheme from time to time.” i) The learned counsel submits that the petitioner's family members have provided NOC/Undertakings in favor of the petitioner. He further states that merely receiving pension by the spouse of the deceased employee is not a barrier to consider the claim of the deceased's dependents for compassionate appointment, relying on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.726 of 2020 dated 4 JS,J W.P.(AT) No.629 of 2021 27.02.2020, which was followed in W.P.No.10329 of 2022 dated 29.06.2022. Paragraph 1 on page 3 of the order in W.P.No.726 of 2020 is extracted hereunder: “This Court after hearing both the learned counsel notices that the short and simple question involved in this case is whether the petitioner is disentitled from seeking compassionate appointment on the ground that his mother is drawing pension. The rationale behind the scheme for compassionate appointment has been considered in many cases. The idea is to provide quick relief to the destitute family members of an employee who died in harness. Apart from that in OA.No.10983 of 2008 and in OA.No.4457 of 2015, a similar question fell for consideration before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal in both these cases held that the intention of the Government in providing compassionate appointment is to give „permanent relief‟ to the deserving members of the family of a Government service who died in harness. Therefore, in both these cases, Tribunal held that the mere fact that another family member is drawing pension would not disentitle an otherwise qualified candidate for compassionate appointment.” and prayed to allow the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Services-II points out that the clarification issued in Circular Memo No.3548/Ser.G/AD/2010-8, dated 24.03.2012, clearly states that where one of the parents of the applicant is in service or receipt of service pension and family pension and lump sum retiral benefits, the dependent 5 JS,J W.P.(AT) No.629 of 2021 child is not entitled to seek compassionate appointment since there is no financial distress. Hence, the rejection order passed by the 3rd respondent is valid, and the writ petitionis liable to be dismissed. 6. While disposing of W.P.No.726 of 2020, the learned Single Judge of this Court has referred to the order passed by the Division Bench of the combined High Court in W.P.No.16242 of 2013. The Division Bench, in its order, clearly held that “merely because the family pension is being paid to the wife of the deceased, the same is not a ground to deprive the benefit of compassionate appointment under this scheme notified by the Government for the children of the deceased who die in harness”. The interpretation placed by the Government in its memo or its understanding for pension is not binding on this Court. The order of the Division Bench is binding on this Court. The idea behind the compassionate appointment scheme is to give lasting or permanent relief to the family of a deceased employee. 7. This Court believes that the petitioner is also a similarly situated person whose representation was negatived without proper appreciation and, therefore, the impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent are liable to be set aside. 6 JS,J W.P.(AT) No.629 of 2021 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition (AT) is allowed by setting aside the proceedings in Rc.No.2551/E3/2015, dated 05.01.2016, issued by the 3rd respondent and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in any suitable post along with all benefits that would accrue from the date of her application. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed as a sequel thereto. ____________________ SUMATHI JAGADAM, J 31st January, 2025 cbs 7 JS,J W.P.(AT) No.629 of 2021 THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Writ Petition (AT) No.629 of 2021 31st January, 2025 cbs