APHC010247682006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE WRIT PETITION N Between: P.Fathimun Akthar, W/o.late P.Subhan Khan, P.C.1796, Aged about 36 years, R/o.Giddalur, Prakasam District AND The Superintendent of Police, O/o the District Near Kondareddy Buruju, Kurnool, Kurnool District, Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following Aggrieved by the Order dated 30.9.2005 passed in O.A. No. 2003 on the file of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), the present writ petition is filed. 2. The petitioner filed the said O.A., seeking the following relief: “… to direct the respondents to ap as Sweeper/Attender as per the died in harness employees quota/Government Orders and to pay the family pension, provident fund, gratuity and other monetary benefits as per eligibility.” IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TWENTY SECOND 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.22083 OF 2006 P.Fathimun Akthar, W/o.late P.Subhan Khan, P.C.1796, Aged about 36 years, R/o.Giddalur, Prakasam District. ...Petitioner The Superintendent of Police, O/o the District Superintendent of Police Near Kondareddy Buruju, Kurnool, Kurnool District, and others. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.D.Kasim Saheb Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Home G.P. for Services–I The Court made the following ORDER: (per Hon’ble NJS,J) Aggrieved by the Order dated 30.9.2005 passed in O.A. No. 2003 on the file of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), the present writ The petitioner filed the said O.A., seeking the following relief: to direct the respondents to appoint the applicant Attender as per the died in harness employees quota/Government Orders and to pay the family pension, d, gratuity and other monetary benefits as per IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA P.Fathimun Akthar, W/o.late P.Subhan Khan, P.C.1796, Aged about 36 ...Petitioner Superintendent of Police, ...Respondents Aggrieved by the Order dated 30.9.2005 passed in O.A. No.2215 of 2003 on the file of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), the present writ The petitioner filed the said O.A., seeking the following relief: point the applicant Attender as per the died in harness employees quota/Government Orders and to pay the family pension, d, gratuity and other monetary benefits as per 2 WP_22083_2006 3. The respondent No.3 herein filed O.A. No.1719 of 2003 seeking the following relief: “… to direct the respondents to pay the family pension and other benefits on account of the death of her husband (P.Subhan Khan).” 4. Both the said O.As., were disposed of by common order dated 30.9.2005. The petitioner had not filed any writ petition against the orders passed in O.A. No.1719 of 2003 and in so far as the present writ petition is concerned, the same is dismissed for default against the respondent No.3 vide order dated 27.6.2011. 5. The learned Tribunal vide common order dated 30.9.2005 disposed of O.A. No.1719 of 2003 holding that the applicant in the said O.A., is entitled to half of the family pension due in respect of the deceased employee and the children of the 2nd wife are entitled to the other half of the family pension subject to individual eligibility in terms of the Rules. In so far as O.A. No.2215 of 2003, the learned Tribunal held that the applicant is not eligible to claim compassionate appointment as the deceased employee has not obtained prior permission for contacting the second marriage. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner is the legally wedded (2nd) wife of the deceased employee Mr.P.Subhan Khan, who died on 28.8.1995 while he was in service and she made a representation on 18.7.1996 seeking compassionate appointment. Referring to the earlier attempts made by the petitioner by filing O.As before the learned Tribunal and the orders passed therein upto the order impugned in the present writ petition, learned counsel submits that even if the petitioner is not entitled to claim compassionate appointment on the premise that the deceased employee had not obtained prior permission from the Authorities for contacting second 3 WP_22083_2006 marriage, the petitioner’s children cannot be denied appointment on compassionate grounds. He submits that at the time of death of the deceased employee, the children are minors and therefore, no application was made seeking to consider their appointment on compassionate grounds. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukhesh Kumar vs. Union of India1, learned counsel submits that the children born to the 2nd wife of the deceased employee are entitled for compassionate appointment and as they attained majority, they will make an application now and the same may be directed to be considered as per the existing Policy. Making the said submissions, learned counsel seeks appropriate directions. 7. On the other hand, Mr.R.S. Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services–I made submissions to sustain the order under challenge. While not disputing the legal position in the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he, however, submits that in the case on hand the children of the petitioner on attaining the majority appears to have not made any application seeking compassionate appointment, that the petitioner’s husband died as long back as on 29.8.1995 and in such circumstances allowing the children of the petitioner to make an application and a direction to the Authorities to consider the same more particularly when the writ petition is dismissed for default against the respondent No.3 merits no consideration. Making the said submissions, learned Assistant Government Pleader urges for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the only point that falls for adjudication is whether the order of the learned Tribunal warrants interference in the facts and circumstances of the case? 1 (2022) 14 SCC 161 4 WP_22083_2006 9. On a perusal of the material on record, the date on which the deceased employee contacted the marriage with the petitioner is not available. Rule 25 of the A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 dealing with bigamous marriages reads as follows: 25. Bigamous marriages:- (1) No Government employee who has a wife living shall contract another marriage without first obtaining the permission of the Government, notwithstanding that such subsequent marriage is permissible under the personal law for the time being applicable to him. "Provided that where the personal law provides for second or subsequent marriage, the Government employee shall, while seeking permission to contract another marriage, produce documentary evidence in support of "Divorce or Talaq" in respect of previous marriage and the manner in which the same was secured or pronounced and intimated to the first or former wife". (2) "No female Government servant, whether unmarried or widow or divorced, as the case may be, shall marry any person who has a wife living without first obtaining the permission of the Government, though the parties are governed by the personal law which otherwise permits contracting more than one marriage while the prior marriage is subsisting". 10. The above referred Rule makes it clear that it is obligatory on the part of the Government employee irrespective of the Personnel Law to seek permission before contacting another marriage. No material is available on record that the deceased employee, in terms of the aforesaid Rule, obtained permission much less intimation of contacting second marriage with the petitioner. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal for rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner, as no prior permission was obtained by the deceased employee, is sustainable. 11. In so far as the submission with reference to making an application by the children of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates that the policy cannot discriminate against a person only on the ground of 5 WP_22083_2006 descent by classifying children of the deceased employee as legitimate and illegitimate and recognizing only the right of legitimate descendant. The said decision is not applicable in all fours to the fact situation of the present case, in as much as the legitimacy of the children of the petitioner is not the point for examination. 12. It is settled law that the scheme of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the distress and financial hardship faced by the families on account of sudden demise of the Government employee in harness. It is also settled law that the compassionate appointment is a concession granted to the children of the deceased Government employees in certain exceptional circumstances, but not a constitutional right. In the present case, the husband of the petitioner died on 28.8.1995. Thirty years have gone by and the dates on which the children of the petitioner attained majority are not available. Admittedly they have not made any application immediately on attaining the age of majority seeking compassionate appointment. Under the said circumstances, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to grant liberty to make an application for compassionate appointment at this stage, in the opinion of this Court, merits no consideration. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J _____________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA,J September 22, 2025 vasu