A IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE .V-- o. o:M PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 25306 OF 2021 Between: P. Venkatesh, S/o Late P. Nandagopal, Aged about 34 years, R/o D No 58 Rangaiah Layout, 17th Cross Road, BSK 3''^ Stage, Bangalore 85. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Director General oL Police, Andhra Pradesh, Head Quarters Mangalagiri Town and Mandal, Guntur District. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Ohittoor, Chittoor District ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction may more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents not consider the petitioner representation dated 11.3.2019 and 12.03.2020 for compassionate appointment of any post consequent the death of his father late P. NaVidagopal while in service as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and contrary to law, violation of Article 14,16 and 21 of Constitution of India and on consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioner representation is entitled to be considered for appointment as dependent tk % lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC prayirt^ 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 petitioner representation dated 11.03.2019 and 12.03.2020 for appointment of compassionate grounds, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P V VENKATA RAVI SANKAR and Dr. P.B Reddy Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following; Order APHC010402982021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 25306/2021 Between: ...PETITIONER P. Venkatesh, AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P V VENKATA RAVI SANKAR and Dr. PB Reddy Counsel for the Respondent(S): • 1.GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER;- Heard Sri PVVenkata Ravi Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services I. The writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents in not considering the application filed by the petitioner for a compassionate appointment. The petitioner contends that the father of the petitioner died in 2. harness. It is contended that the father of the petitioner died on 09.10.2007 The father of the petitioner, during his lifetime, married the mother of the petitioner for the second time on account of the death of his first 3. while in service. 2 wife. Through his first wife, he had two children, and through the petitioner's - mother, he had three children. There were some family disputes between the family members. However, it was agreed to give family pension to the mother of the petitioner. 4. At the time of the death of the petitioner's father, he was a minor and immediately attaining the majority, submitted an application to the respondent for consideration of his case for family pension. The said application was dismissed vide endorsement dated 03.03.2020. petitioner appears to have made another representation on 12.03.2020 to the 1®* respondent. Against non-consideration of the said application, the petitioner has approached this Court. The The respondent filed his counter affidavit stating that the petitioner's mother has earlier approached Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, by way of an application in O.A.No.6482 of 2014 to release the family pension and sought compassionate appointment to his son in the Department. The Tribunal ordered for release of family pension, however, refused to grant compassionate appointment on the ground that the application was not filed within one year from the date of the death of the The petitioner's mother submitted her representation dated 06.03.2019 to the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor, On the said representation, endorsement dated 25.04.2019 was issued to the petitioner's mother stating that the compassionate appointment cannot be granted since the application was not filed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.687, General 5. employee. 3 Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 03.10.1977. The petitioner’s mother has filed further representation dated 11.06.2019 to the Director General of Police. The said application was also rejected vide proceedings dated 26.02.2020. The same was informed to the petitioner vide endorsement dated 03.03.2020. The petitioner thereafter made an application to the 1®‘ respondent seeking the same relief. The 3'^'' respondent in his counter has stated that unless the conditions mentioned under the G.O.Ms.No.687 General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 03.10.1977, are satisfied which is the relevant G.O., governing the issue, the petitioner cannot seeking for compassionate appointment. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the following 6. decisions in support of his case. (i) the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India and Others (ii) the decision of the Madras High Court at Madurai Bench in the case of M.Vijayakumar Vs. The Director of School Education and Others Considered the rival submissions. The application filed on behalf 7. of the petitioner by his mother was rejected vide proceedings/en dorsement dated 25.04.2019 and 03.03.2020, on the ground that the application was not filed within the stipulated period of one year. The said proceedings were not challenged by the petitioner himself or on his behalf, by his mother. Further, the Tribunal, in the earlier round of litigation, has rejected the very same relief sought by him. It appears that the same has become final. Having regard to 4 the same, the present writ petition does not merit consideration. decisions relied upon by the petitioner are distinguishable on the facts. 8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to SRI P V VENKATA RAVI SANKAR, Advocate [OPUC] 2 Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 3. Three CD Copies gsg HIGH COURT DATED: 25/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.25306 of 2021 DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS