APHC010179242012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 32212/2012 Between: 1. M. UMAMAHESWARA MANOHARA RAO,, S/O LATE RAMAMOHAN RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 34 YRS, UNEMPLOYEE, R/O 6-420/9, VIDYANAGAR, OPP. SGS COLLEGE, 6TH WARD, JAGGAIAHPET, KRISHNA DISTRIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD. 2. THE VICE CHAIRMAN MANAGING DIRECTOR, GIRIJAN CO- OPERATIVE CORPORATION LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER ADMINISTRATION, GIRIJAN CO- OPERATIVE CORPORATION LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order or direction declaring the action of the Respondents in not providing employment in place of his deceased father on compassionate grounds is illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the principles of natural justice and for a consequential direction directing the Respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the Petitioner herein in the Girijan Co- operative Corporation Limited in the available out of existing 283 vacancies forthwith IA NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP 41077 OF 2012 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 herein to consider the representation dated 9.4.2012 submitted by the Petitioner herein for considering his case for appointment in the last grade service on compassionate grounds IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 20572 OF 2013 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 IA NO: 2 OF 2013(WPMP 22176 OF 2013 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 herein to consider the representation dated 8.3.2013 submitted by the Petitioner herein for considering his case for appointment in the last grade service on compassionate grounds in terms of G.O.Ms.No.4, Public Enterprises (III), Dept., dated 16.6.2010 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P.V.V SATYANARAYANA (SC FOR GIRIJAN C O) 2. P V V SATYANARAYANA (SC FOR GIRIJAN C O) 3. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri V.Sai Sriharsha, learned counsel representing Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare for the 1st respondent, and the learned Standing Counsel for Girijan Cooperative Corporation Limited for the respondents 2 and 3. 2. The petitioner filed the aforementioned writ petition to declare the action of respondents 2 and 3 in not providing employment on compassionate grounds, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. a) Petitioner’s father, by name M.Ramamohan Rao, while working as a salesman at Girijan Cooperative Corporation, Gummalakshmipuram, died on 21.04.1991, leaving behind the petitioner, his mother and sister. Petitioner made an application dated 12.05.1991 seeking employment on compassionate grounds, enclosing the requisite documents. b) As per the averments in Para-4 of the affidavit, the department raised objections regarding the two wives of the deceased father. However, the competent civil Court issued a succession certificate in the year 2005. A list was prepared by the Corporation showing the names of the persons to be considered for compassionate appointment, wherein the petitioner’s name was shown at S.No.63. However, the case of the petitioner was not considered and hence, the above writ petition was filed. Page 4 of 6 4. a) A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents 2 & 3. The 2nd respondent deposed to the affidavit. It was contended, interalia, that the father of the petitioner died on 21.04.1991, and his dependants obtained a legal heir certificate vide D.Dis.362/99, dated 25.05.1999. The petitioner’s mother initially sought an appointment through representation dated 27.05.1999. The said representation was received by the Manager, G.L. Puram on 21.08.1999 and the same was forwarded to the office of 2nd respondent vide letter dated 19.12.2000. The petitioner was aged about 22 years and passed B.A. degree. On production of the succession certificate issued by the Junior Civil Judge, Salur, the terminal benefits were settled during the year 2005. b) As per the representations, the petitioner was a minor by the time of his father’s death and made a representation through his mother seeking employment after a lapse of 8 years, and the same is not permissible in terms of G.O.Ms.No.604 P&SE(H) Department dated 20.06.1979. The Government revised staff pattern of the Girijan Cooperative Corporation vide G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 08.07.1994 and identified 223 posts as surplus in various categories. The Board of Directors vide their Resolution No.47/95-86, dated 09.10.1995 followed by another Resolution No.158/2002-03, dated 22.01.2003 decided to pay ex gratia in lieu of compassionate appointments. The petitioner made a representation claiming ex-gratia and the same was forwarded vide letter dated 22.03.2013 to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent vide Lr.Rc.No.100/2003/A2, dated 08.05.2013 reported to the prevailing position and requested the Government to consider the case of the petitioner and, eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. Page 5 of 6 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, made submissions reiterating the contentions as per the averments in the affidavit and counter affidavit. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner made a representation dated 12.05.1991. However, neither an acknowledgement nor any other proof was filed by the petitioner regarding his making the representation dated 12.05.1991. In fact, as seen from the counter affidavit, the petitioner’s mother made a representation dated 25.07.1999 to consider her case for appointment on compassionate grounds, and the said representation was forwarded. Hence, the claim of the petitioner regarding his making application dated 12.05.1991 creates any amount of doubt. Of course, the list of applicants for appointment on compassionate grounds was prepared by the Corporation and the name of the petitioner was shown at S.No.63. As seen from the list, the petitioner made an application on 09.12.2000, and the father of the petitioner died on 21.04.1991. Thus, the petitioner made the application after 9½ years. 7. In H.Teena Pratyusha Vs. Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Hyderabad and others1, learned single Judge of the composite High Court considered identical issue. In the said case, an application was made after expiry of 6 years from the date of death of employee. In that connection, it was held thus: “6. The scheme for providing employment on compassionate grounds is an extraordinary measure to enable the family to tide over the difficulties that arise on account of the sudden death of the 1 2011 (6) ALD 364 breadwinner of the family. In case the family is otherwise self- sufficient, the benefit cannot be claimed as of right. 7. Wherever such schemes exist, invariably, a condition is stipulated to the effect that the benefit must be claimed within one year from the date of death of the employee. In case the dependant is a minor, the time is enlarged to a reasonable extent.” 8. In the case at hand, as seen from the averments in Para-3 of the counter affidavit, initially, the mother of the petitioner made a representation dated 27.05.1999 and thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated 09.12.2000. Thus, the petitioner made an application after 9½ years claiming appointment on compassionate grounds. Hence, in view of the ratio in the judgment referred to supra, the petitioner cannot claim appointment as a matter of right. In fact, as seen from the averments in the counter affidavit, the petitioner’s case was considered for compensation. Given the discussion supra, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is Dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD