IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 36868 OF 2014 Between: P.Srinivas, S/o. Late Veera Swami, Hindu, aged 37 years, Occ: Unemployed, R/o. Makkiput Camp, Onukudelli Post, Koraput District, Odessa State •' ...PETITIONER AND The A.P.Genco, rep. by its Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. The Joint Secretary(Personnel), A.P.Genco, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. The Chief Engineer(0&M), Lower Sileru H.E. Scheme, AP Genco, Mothugudem Post, Khammam District, The Superintending Engineer(0&M), Machkund Hydro Electric (Joint Scheme Project, AP Genco, Onukudelli Post, Koraput Dist., Odessa State The Project Divisional Engineer, Generation Division, AP Genco, Onukudelli Post, Koraput Dist;, Odessa State, 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more fully one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents prematurely retiring petitioner’s father on 29-01-2005 instead of 30-06-2005 by revising his date of birth just before his retirement without any notice to him and in P not considering petitioner’s case as per contents of the Letter No.SE/0 & M/MKD/ADM/ D.No.293/2013 dated 24-05-2013 is illegal, arbitrary and opposed to Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner in a suitable post in the respondent Corporation as per Letter No.SE/O&M/MKD/ADM/ D.No.293/2013 dated 24-05-2013. fv’-’. LA. NO: 1 OF 2014fWPMP. NO: 46137 OF 20141 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 to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and appoint him in a suitable post on compassionate grounds as per Letter No.SE/O&M/MKD/ADM/D.No.293/2013 dated 24-05-2013 pending the above writ petition in the interest ofjustice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. DEEPIKA GADDE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5:SRI NAGARAJU NAGURU, SC FORAPGENCO The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010594812014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] f THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 36868/2014 Between: P.srinivas, ...PETITIONER AND The A P Genco and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.DEEPIKA GADDE Counsel for the Respondent(S): I.Nagaraju Naguru,Standing Counsel For APGENCO 2. The Court made the following: Order:- The petitioner is challenging the unilateral correction of the date of birth of the petitioner’s father and the retirement of the petitioner’s father on 29.01.2005 instead of 30.06.2005. The petitioner is also seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner to a suitable post on account of the petitioner’s father being made to retire prior to his actual date of retirement. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s father was born on 17.06.1947 and that his service record, maintained by the respondents, has also recorded the date of birth of the petitioner’s father 17.06.1947. However, for reasons better known to the respondents, the date of birth of the petitioner’s father was considered as 17.06.1946, and the said as correction in the date of birth was done just before the petitioner’s father to attain the date of superannuation. was The petitioner’s father was superannuated on 29.01.2005 instead of 30.06.2005. The petitioner’s father subsequently passed away on 14.05.2005. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s father ought to be treated as on duty as on the date of his death, as he was made to retire prematurely, and as such, claims for appointment on compassionate grounds as well. The petitioner’s father made a representation seeking correction in the date of birth. However, the same was not considered. 4. The petitioner filed W.P.No.29062 of 2008 and sought a declaration from this Court to treat his father’s age of retirement as 30.06.2005.The said representation was dismissed by this Court on 20.01.2009. The present writ 3 petition is also filed seeking a similar relief. However, he is seeking a further direction in this Writ Petition for appointing the petitioner in a suitable post. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner’s father was actually to retire on 30.06.2004. However, he permitted to work beyond the date of attaining the age of superannuation and was permitted to work till 21.01.2005. It is also submitted that the entry of date of birth in the service records cannot be corrected by the respondents, except for clerical errors and on the directions of the board, as per regulation 10-E of the A.P.S.E.B with service regulations. Reliance is also placed on regulation 10(2). 5. was The claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be considered, as the petitioner’s father served beyond the date of his actual retirement. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner’s family has received the service benefits, and as such, the petitioner cannot claim appointment on compassionate terms. Considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Canara Bank vs Ajithkumar G.K’ in Civil Appeal No.255 of 2025 has laid down the guidelines to be followed by employees while considering the cases for compassionate appointment and has referred to various judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which contour the appointment on compassionate grounds. The Court has held that compassionate appointment can be considered only on the ground of the 6. 7. ^ (2025) see 184 4 financial situation of the deceased employee’s family and can be considered only when the family is unable to maintain itself and the financial condition of the family is in distress. Only in rare and exceptional cases can the employee’s case be considered for appointment on compassionate terms. Following the same, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the proceedings of the respondents. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as 8. 9. to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. SRINIVAS . ASSISTANT REGISTRAR > / //true copy// SECTION OFFICER To Deepika Gadde, Advocate [OPUC] SC for APGENCO [OPUC] One CC to Smt. One CC to Sri Nagaraju Naguru 1. 2. Three CD Copies. 3. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:13/02/2025 S 09 APR 2025 ^ ^ . Current Secuon . ORDER WP.No.36868 of 2014 DISMISSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS