0^ APHC010653562014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 19109 OF 2014 Between: 1. The Government of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat A.P., Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner Andhra Pradesh,, Vydya Vidhan Parishad, Koti, Hyderabad. 3. The District, Coordinator, Hospital services, Nandyal, Kurnool District. 4. The District Medical and Health Officer., Kurnool, Kurnool district. ...Petitioners 2 to 4/Respondents 1 to 3 in OA No. 8677/2010 AND 1. Smt Jameela Bibi, W/o.Late. S. Basheer, Occ; House Wife, R/o. S.M.T. Colony, Yemmiganur Town, Kurnool Distinct. ...Respondent/Applicant in OA No. 8677/2010 2. The A.P Administrative Tribunal, rep. by its Registrar, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad. ...Respondent 3. Shajahan, S/o. Patan Millalla, R/o. Shivalayam Street, Near Bus Stand, Gonegandla Village & Mandel, Kurnool District. ( 3rd Respondent is a formal party as no relief is sought against him) ...4^^ Respondent in OA NO. 8677/2010 Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be Petition under circumstances stated in r appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one pleased to issue an in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and call for the records relating to the order dt.12-08-2013 in O.A.No.8677 of 2010 on the file of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Adminstrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and to quash or set aside the same by holding as erroneous, and contrary to law. lA NO: 2 OF 2014(WPMP 23955 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 of order of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative suspend the operation Tribunal, Hyderabad, dt,12-08-2013 in O.A.No.8677 of 2010 pending disposal of the Writ petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2Q17(WVMP 3111 OF 20171 Between; Smt Jameela Bibi, W/o.Late. S. Basheer, Occ: House Wife, R/o. S.M.T. Colony, Yemmiganur Town, Kurnool Distinct. ...Petitioners /Respondents 1 in WP No. 19109 of 2014 AND by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat A.P., Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. Pradesh,, Vydya Vidhan Parishad, Koti, 1. The Government of A.P., rep. 2. The Commissioner Andhra Hyderabad. 3. The District, Coordinator, Hospital services, Nandyal, Kurnool District. District Medical and Health Officer., Kurnool, Kurnool district. ...Respondents/Petitioners in WP No. 19109 of 2014 4. The 5. The Hon’ble A.P Administrative Tribunal, rep. by its Registrar, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad. 6. Shajahan, S/o. Patan Millalla, R/o. Shivalayam Street, Near Bus Stand, Gonegandia Village & Mandel, Kurnool District. ...Respondents/Respondents in WP No. 19109 of 2014 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 vacate the interim orders dated 10.7.2014 in W.P.M.P. No.23955 of 2014 in W.P. No. 19109 of 2014. Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondents; SRI DHEERA KANISHKA The Court made the following order: tyr- \ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 19109/2014 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela) Heard, As it is gospel truth that “The majesty of death is that it is a great leveller for, it makes no distinction between the young and the old or the rich and the poor. Death being as a consequence of birth at some point of time is inevitable for every being. Thus, while death is certain, its timing is uncertain. ” The State preferred the Writ Petition against the common order passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) in O.A.No.8677 of 2010 with V.M.A.Nos.1708, 2037 of 2011 and CANo1272 of 2013 and O.A.No.4447 of 2013, dated 12.08.2013. The respondents 1 and 3 were represented through counsel, Sri Dheera Kanishka. The State preferred the Writ Petition only against the order in O.A.No.8677 of 2010, the contentions and the adversaries in the O.A. are only taken into consideration. The parties are referred to as mentioned in the Writ Petition. 1. 2. The O.A. which was filed by the 1"‘ respondent herein states that she is the legally wedded wife of late Sri S.Basheer. Their marriage was performed on 10.02.1991 as per the Muslim Rites and Customs and they were blessed with one daughter and one son who are 16 and 14 years respectively. The husband passed away on 20.12.2007 and thereafter the 1®* respondent’s name was entered in the Service Register as a nominee and the concerned Tahsildar, Yemmiganur issued ‘Legal Heir Certificate’ and ‘No Earning Member Certificate’. 3. ^ : It is the case of the respondent herein before the Tribunal that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, issued ‘Financial Status certificate’ and the Lok Adalat awarded Rs.4,000/- per month to the 1"‘ respondent in M.C.No.2 of 2007 filed against her late husband and the matter is sub judice before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Yemmiganur. Soon after the death of the husband, the 1®' respondent herein applied for the Scavenger on compassionate grounds. However, considering the letter written by the 3'"' respondent herein (2""' wife of late S.Basheer) who is unknown to the family of the applicant/1"' respondent herein, the 3'" petitioner herein the District Coordinator, Hospital Services, denied the appointment under compassionate grounds. Therefore, the 1"' respondent herein was constrained to issue legal notice, dated 10.11.2010, through her advocate, to the District Coordinator. Despite receipt of the said legal notice, appointment is not given to the 1"' respondent herein. In aliunde, counter filed by the 3'*^ respondent in O.A.No.8677 of 2010, it is stated that, as per the Service Register of late S.Basheer, the deceased Government Servant was initially appointed as sweeper and posted to the UPHC Gonegandia, by the District Medical and Health Officer, Kurnool. His date of joining into service as sweeper was 21.06.1990. Later on he worked in the institutions which come under the control of Andhra Pradesh Vaidhya Vidhana Parishad. His last place of duty was Community Health Center, Banaganapalli, which comes under the control of Andhra Pradesh Vaidhya Vidhana Parishad. As per the Service Register, the deceased Government Servant was absconding from service w.e.f. 01.05.2007. He died on 20.12.2007 in Nashirabad village, Jalgon District, Maharashtra State per the P.M. No.878, Memorandum of Post Mortem held at C.H. issued by Civil Surgeon, C.H., Jalgon, dated 20.12.2007 and also Death Certificate issued by Medical Officer, C.H., Jalgon and Crime No.34 of 2007 was registered against the husband under Section 174 Cr.P.C. of Nashirabad Police Station, Jalgon District, Maharashtra State and the by the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Yemmiganur Town Police Station, 4. post of i.e. 5. , as Jalgon same was certified 3 Kurnool district, dated 18.02.2009. It is further stated that the deceased was on unauthorized absence from duty on the date of his death. Further, it is stated that the respondent submitted application on 08.06.2009 for compassionate appointment, due to the death of her husband, to the Civil Surgeon Specialist, Banaganapalli on 12.06.2009 and the 1®' respondent produced the Legal Fleir Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Yemmiganur, vide L.Dis.No.3 of 2009, dated 12.01.2009. Further, ‘No Earning Member Certificate’ was issued by Tahsildar, Yemmiganur, vide L.Dis.No. 194/2009, dated 02.04.2009 and Financial Status Certificate issued by Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni on 26.05.2009. 6. The further contention in the counter by the respondent No.3 is that the unofficial respondent-Shajahan submitted her application in the month of May, 2009 to the District Flealth and Medical officer, Kurnool, requesting for sanction of Family Pension, atleast.. Again, Sri K.Arlappa, Advocate for unofficial respondent, Adoni, addressed to Sri M.Rama Krishnaiah, Advocate for the 1®* respondent herein, Nandyal, requesting to sanction death benefits and job on compassionate grounds and further stated that the said Shajahan is the 2'^'^ wife of the deceased employee and the 1®* respondent herein is none other than her own sister. It is further stated in the counter that the said Shajahan has not submitted any evidence to prove herself as 2'^'^ wife except one ration card issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gonegandia and original application of the said Shajahan was sent to the District Coordinator of Hospital Services, Nandyal, dated 20.05.2009. At paragraph No.7 of the counter, it is stated that the application for appointment on compassionate grounds was submitted by the 1 respondent beyond one year after the death of her husband, which is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.687, General Administration (Ser-A) Department, dated 03.10.1997. At paragraph No.8 of the counter, it is stated that the application was received pertaining to the appointment on compassionate grounds of the 1®* respondent on 01.12.2010 and that the deceased employee expired on 7. St 4 20.12.2007 in Nashirabad village, Jalgon District, Maharashtra State, while absence of duty on the date of death. Again, there is a reiteration regarding G.O.Ms.No.687 that to entertain an application for compassionate grounds, the application should be made within a period of one year and that the application was made by the 1®* respondent after a period of 01 year 05 months and 22 days which makes the applicant ineligible for appointment Compassionate Grounds. At paragraph No. 10 of the counter, it is stated that as per the interim orders of the Hon’ble Tribunal in the O.A., dated 09.12.2010, the case of the applicant was examined and a speaking order was made negativing her request for appointment on Compassionate Grounds vide Rc.No.2862/G3/ 2010, dated 08.01.2011 as she has not submitted her application within year from the date of death of the deceased Government Servant, and that the pensionary benefits will be sanctioned if she submits Succession Certificate. on on 8. one The learned Tribunal after considering the matter at length vide under challenge allowed O.A.No.8677 of 2010 with a direction to consider the case of the 1®* respondent herein for compassionate appointment. The 4 respondent in the said O.A. had not filed any writ petition. Having heard the learned Government Pleader and the counsel for the 1®' respondent and examining the facts and circumstances narrated above, the question that falls for consideration of this Court is; “Whether the application for appointment on compassionate grounds could be denied to the respondent No. 1 in the Writ Petition on the ground of delay of 1 year 5 months and the order of the Tribunal is liable to be interfered with?” 9. th 10. 11. As seen from the facts and circumstances narrated in the O.A. as well as in the counter in O.A.No.8677 of 2010, it is not in dispute that the husband of the 1 St respondent passed away on 20.12.2007 and the 5 application for compassionate appointment was made beyond one-year period. It is also not denied by the Writ Petitioners that the deceased employee was found dead in the State of Maharashtra and Crime was registered and the knowledge of death was known to the Writ Petitioners only pursuant to the said crime and, hence, immediately as stated by the 1 respondent in the O.A., she made application for compassionate appointment to the competent authority. St The sole object of providing compassionate appointment is to provide the deceased family with immediate succour and to ensure with some economic betterment as obligated by the State and as per the rules and instructions issued by the Government from time to time. 12. On the other hand, it is to be noted that the compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, but must be governed by the terms on which the State lays down the policy of offering employment assistance to a member of the family of deceased government employee. But in the instant case, the delay is not abnormal so as to deny the very legitimate and legal right accrued to the 1®* respondent/family member of the deceased. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of the writ petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited and others v. Anusree K.B.\ regarding the proposition that when there is abnormal delay, appointment cannot be given on compassionate grounds. The Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph No.9 observed as follows: 13. 14. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the ‘9. ‘ Civil Appeal No.6958 of 2022 6 family to Me over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased. ” But, in the present case, the delay is only 1 year 5 months, which cannot be equated with a delay of 24 years as in the decision cited above, Sri Dheera Kanishka, learned 15. counsel appearing for the respondent/applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balbir Kaur and Another v. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others ^, to draw the attention of this Court that the compassionate appointment cannot be denied merely on the ground of delay The Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph No. 19 held as follows: “19. We are not called upon to assess the situation but the fact that having due regard to the constitutional philosophy to decry a compassionate employment opportunity would neither be fair reasonable. The concept of social justice is the yardstick to the justice administration system or the legal justice and as Roscoe Pound pointed out that the greatest virtue of law is in its adaptability and flexibility and thus it would be otherwise an obligation for the law courts also to apply the law depending upon the situation since the law is made for the society and whichever is beneficial for the society, the endeavour of the law court would be to administer justice having due regard in that direction. ” Learned counsel for the respondent/applicant further relied the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saurabh Chourasiya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others^, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph Nos.7 and 8 has observed that the purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds is to alleviate the financial crisis faced by the family of the deceased and allowed the appeal holding that rigid adherence to the timeline has resulted in injustice defeating the very object of the Policy. It is no more res Integra that the delay in filing the application for the purpose of seeking compassionate appointment in pursuance of the death of the Government Servant has to be examined in the attending facts and remains nor 16. upon 17. (2006) 6 see 493 ^ eivil Appeai No._ (Diary No.24641 of 2022) of 2024 7 circumstances of the case. There is no rigid formula and hard-and-fast rule that the application need to be made within a period of one year when the delay in making such application is elucidated by cogent reasons. The respondent No.1 has given good reasons for not applying within time and the delay caused was properly taken note by the Tribunal. Therefore, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners merits no appreciation and this Court is inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/applicant that the delay is not abnormal so as to reject the case of the respondent No.1 for compassionate appointment. The point is answered accordingly. 18. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed, confirming the order of the Tribunal. The respondents shall implement the Tribunal’s order and issue proceedings of appointment to the respondent/ applicant on compassionate grounds to a suitable post, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. As a sequel. Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- G. HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri. Dheera Kanishka Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Services I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 3. Two CD Copies gsc iC'-Ov ■ t V HIGH COURT DATED;26/09/2025 ORDER WP NO. 19109 OF 2014 DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS