THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 7067 OF 2005 Between: Sundara Durga Prasada Rao, S/o. Late Govinda care of Ammisetti Sattayya, Jaganyakulapalem Ramachandrapuram Mandal. East Godavari District. Rao, R/o. Under the Via Draksharamam, ...Petitioner AND 1. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad. 2. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India 3. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India Visakhapatnam. Local Heal Office, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. Regional Office, ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied therewith, the High Court be pleased to Issue a Writ, order or direction nature of Writ of Certiorari callings for the may more particularly one in the records from the office of the 3rd respondent pertaining the order dated 15-5-2004 issued under Reference No, (3-1)/PER & HRD/F 25/30 and to quash the same holding that it iIS Illegal, arbitrary, unjust, malafide, against the principles of natural Justice without proper application of mind and and consequentially to direct the Respondents to provide him a suitable job on compassionate grounds i the Respondents Bank. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2005(WPMP. NO: 9418 OF 2005) in Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, pleased pass an interim direction against the respondents suitable job in the Respondents' Bank the High Court may be to provide him a on ad-hoc basis to meet the penurious state of our family and to save them from starvation, during the pendency of the Writ Petition, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI, K SARVA BHOUMA Counsel for the Respondents: SR! K B RAMANNA The Court made the following orderr RAO DORA K - ? ■ '■ 7 APHC010251732005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 7067/2005 Between: ...PETITIONER Sundara Durga Prasada Rao, AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The Chief Gen Manager SBl and 2 others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SARVA BHOUMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.KB RAMANNA DORA 2. E MADAN MOHAN RAO The Court made the following order: Questioning the order dated 15.05.2004 passed by respondent No.3 vide Ref. No.(3-1)/PER & HRD/F 25/30, the present Writ Petition is filed. The case of the petitioner is that his father Sri S.Govinda Rao, who was working as Record Keeper in the office of respondent No.3, expired while in service due to heart attack on 24.03.2000 leaving behind him, his mother and sister besides the petitioner. The petitioner’s mother made an application to 2. 2 respondent No.3 to provide any nature of job to the petitioner on compassionate grounds, for which there is no response from respondent No.3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner along with his mother went to all the respondents, who after a lapse of two years time, sent a letter dated 02.09.2002 informing the petitioner that the application for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected on the ground that the financial condition of the family of the petitioner cannot be termed penurious by citing the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sri Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & others^ The petitioner’s mother made another application dated 29.08.2003 narrating the financial condition of the deceased, but the respondents paid deaf ear, as such, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.4137 of 2004 and this Court vide order dated 16.03.2004 directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order as per rules, regulations and guidelines. The said order was served on the respondents on 16.03.2004, but they did not make any further enquiry into the case, nor called for personal hearing of the petitioner, however served with an order dated 15.05.2004 rejecting the request of the petitioner on the ground that the financial condition of their family cannot be termed as penurious. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. \ as 3. Heard Sri K.Sarvabhouma Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.B.Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for respondents. ' 1994(4) see 138 • \J 3 elaboration to what has been Learned counsel for the petitioner, in affidavit contended that due to the sudden death of deceased, 4. stated in the the deceased was the sole the family members have become helpless, as breadwinner of his family. He further submitted that in the impugned order, the terms of the documents respondents did not discuss the financial position in produced by the petitioner. The impugned order is highly unsustainable and be set aside and accordingly prayed to pass orders in the same is liable to that regard. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents while reiterating contents of the counter contended that during the iife time 5. _ £ i.U Ui Ulc; the deceased, he performed the marriage of his daughter, as such, she is not a of the deceased. At the time of death of deceased, the petitioner dependent was aged 20 years and he is capable of supporting himself on his own. The Bank refused to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds after considering the financial position of the family as per the guidelines provided under the scheme and in consonance with the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. He further submitted that the Widow of the deceased has also opted for family pension at Ramchandrapuram Branch and from the branch apart from pension under she has been drawing the same Mutual Welfare Scheme. The financial position of the petitioner is not such, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate penurious, as appointment. The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed is devoid of merits and in limini, as the same accordingly prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. Perused the record and considered counsel for the parties. the submissions made by learned 7. It is an admitted fact that the father attack on 24.03.2000 while he of the petitioner died due to heart was working as a Record Keeper in the office of respondent No.3. It is also an admitted fact that during the life of deceased, marriage of his daughter, as such, the petitioner and his mother are the only legal heirs of the deceased he has performed the employee. 8. In the judgment of Sri Umesh Kumar Supreme Court held that; (1®' cited supra), the Hon’ble "The whole object of granting comDassionatf^ suaaen crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased^ What Is further, mere death of an employee livelihood. The Government or the public authoritv fZfy'lhhe^^ ^’ooooial condition of the hi f f deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied that abte°toZj^i°fZ'°'' the family will not be able to meet the cnsis that a job Is to be oLred to the nZlbe P^o^'^od a scheeT or ruefs provide for the same. This Court further clarified in the said wWc/ appointment Is not a vested right Which can be exercised at any time after the death of a government servant That the object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of thrKscie breadwinner. ' employment cannot be claimed and offered in compassionate after lapse of 5 considerable amount of time and after the crisis is overcome. ” Perusal of the above would make it clear that the financial condition of the family of the deceased has to be examined by the authority concerned and if it is satisfied that the financial condition of the family will not be able to meet the crisis, then only job to be offered to the eligible member of the family as per the rules. Perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the authority concerned has examined the proposal of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and found that the condition of the family could not be termed as penurious, as such, the said proposal was declined by the competent 9. authority. In Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Hakim Singh^, the Hon’ble 10. Apex Court held that: “This Court placed much emphasis on the need for immediacy in the manner in which claims for compassionate appointment are made by the dependants and decided by the concerned authority. This Court cautioned that it should not be forgotten that the object of compassionate appointment is to give succor to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis that has befallen the dependants on account of the untimely demise of its sole earning member. Therefore, this Court held that it would not be justified in directing appointment for the claimants therein on compassionate grounds, fourteen years after the death of the government employee. That such a direction would amount to treating a claim for compassionate (1997) 8 see 85 6 0 appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession. ” 11. In the case of Canara Bank v. Ajith Kumar G.K^, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that; “An application for compassionate appointment has to be made immediately upon death/incapacitation and in any case within a reasonable period thereof or else a presumption could be drawn that the family of the deceased/incapacitated employee is not in immediate need of financial assistance. Such appointment not being a vested right, the right to apply cannot be exercised at sin\/ fime^ in future^ onH if _ I . I y - . ; I . , i i ^ i it h\r>, Offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. ” 12. In Central Coalfields Limited v. Parden oraon'*, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that; It M/as further asseverated in the said judgment that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period as the consideration of such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in the future. 13. Perusal of the dictum would make it clear that the consideration of compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at ^ AIR online 2025 Supreme Court 184 (2021) 16 Supreme Court Cases 384 7 i any time in future and it cannot be offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. Perusal of the record would indicate that the father of the petitioner 14. died in the year 2000, the application for compassionate appointment was rejected by the authorities in the year 2004 and the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition in the year 2005. Consideration of the petitioner’s appointment at this length of time /.e., after lapse of 25 years from the death of his father would not arise. In view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred supra with regard to compassionate appointment and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the 15. : f impugned' order warrants no interference and the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order 16. as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed. Sd/- G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER i To 1. One CC to Sri K Sarva Bhouma Rao Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri K B Ramanna Dora Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies GSC (gsg) HIGH COURT DATE0:08/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.7067 of 2005 S 25 SEP 2025 llli ^ . Current iieciion DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS