APHC010263752020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 17385/2020 Between: 1. MD. SALEEM, , S/O LATE MD. USMAN, AGED 50 YEARS, MUSLIM, UNEMPLOYEE, R/O HOUSE NO.I-29, ADCICPALLI VILLAGE, UHATTIPROLU POST 81, MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION), HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, NELAPADU, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT (SERVICES-G), A. P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, , DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX, GUNTUR. ...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 topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not reconsidering the case of the petitioner for appointment 2 under the Scheme of Medically Invalidation in pursuance to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4210 of 2003 and Civil Appeal No.4993 of 2008 dated 12.08.2008 as highly illegal, arbitrary, improper, unjust, contrary to Service Rules and in violation of principles of natural Justice guaranteed under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment under the Scheme of Medically Invalidation of his father in any suitable post and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 pleased to direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment under the Scheme of Medically Invalidation in any suitable post by disposing of the representation dated 07.10.2018 pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2020 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 please to grant urgent permission to file W.P.No. of 2020 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASA RAO NARRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N ASHWANI KUMAR 2. GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION Date of Reserved : 05.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 09.02.2026 Date of Upload : 09.02.2026 3 The Court made the following Order: The father of the petitioner was working as a Lower Division Clerk, in the office of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Repalle. He was due to retire from service, on 30.04.2006, upon attaining the age of superannuation. However, the father of the petitioner sought permission to retire from service on the ground of medical invalidation as he was suffering from „Osteo arthritis with hypertension‟. The father of the petitioner submitted his application, on 27.09.1999 for such retirement along with a request for appointment of his son, who is the petitioner in the present Writ Petition, on compassionate grounds. The Government, at that point of time, was operating a scheme of compassionate appointments contained in G.O.Ms.No.504, dated 30.07.1980, G.O.Ms.No.309, dated 04.07.1985 and G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 09.06.1998. 2. The case of, the father of the petitioner, was referred by the District Judge, Guntur, to a medical board for certification of the medical invalidity of the father of the petitioner. The medical board after examination had issued a certificate of medical invalidation, on the basis of which proposals was sent to the Hon‟ble High Court, on 23.02.2000. A second examination was directed under which another medical board examined the father of the petitioner, on 03.04.2001 and affirmed the earlier certification. After this certification, another proposal was sent in June-2001 for retirement of the father of the petitioner and for compassionate appointment of the petitioner. 4 3. The Principal District Judge, Guntur sent an Order, dated 14.12.2001, to the father of the petitioner, stating that the application of the petitioner was being rejected on the ground that a Full Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh had declared the scheme of compassionate appointment as unconstitutional. Thereafter, the said Judgment of Full Bench was set aside by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India, in its Judgment in Civil Appeal No.4993 of 2008, dated 12.08.2008 with further liberty, to the Government, to revive the scheme of compassionate. Subsequently, the Government had also revived, the said scheme of compassionate appointment. In the meanwhile, the father of the petitioner was permitted, by the District Judge, Guntur, by proceedings dated 27.08.2003, to retire without the benefit of compassionate appointment being given to the petitioner. The petitioner, on the ground that the family of the petitioner was suffering on account of the retirement of the father of the petitioner and on the ground that he was entitled to be appointed on a compassionate appointment basis, by virtue of the Judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India, had filed a representation, dated 07.10.2018, to reconsidering the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, the petitioner now approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition. 4. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, stated that the Writ Petition was not maintainable as there were clear laches in filing the Writ Petition. It is contended that this Writ Petition has been filed more than 19 5 years after the rejection of the application of the father of the petitioner, for compassionate appointment of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner, took the stand that further representations had been made on 19.06.2003, 03.11.2008 apart from the representation on 13.12.2018. The petitioner would contend that in such circumstances there was no delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Court and that the petitioner had always been perusing his request for appointment on compassionate appointment. 6. Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents relied upon Judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Surjeet Singh Sahni vs. State of U.P and Ors.,1 Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana2., State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir3., Eastern Coalfields Limited vs. Anil Badyakar and Ors.,4& State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari., 5 to contend that the present Writ Petition would have to be dismissed on the ground of laches as the delay in approaching this Court is not explained. He would also contend that the scheme of compassionate appointment, is to tied over the temporary emergency that arises on account of the loss of the sole breadwinner of the family. He would submit that the question of granting compassionate 1 (2002) 15 SCC 536 para 8 2 (1994) 4 SCC 138 para 6 3 (2006) 5 SCC 766 para 11 4 (2009) 13 SCC 112 para 20 5 2023 SCC Online SC 219 para 35 6 appointment, in 2020, after retirement of the father of the petitioner, in 2003 would not arise. 7. The relevant parts of the Judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, have been extracted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents in the form of a memo. It would be useful to set out the said extracts which are as follows: The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of U.P. and Ors., and the relevant paragraph No.8 is extracted hereunder:- “8. As observed by this Court in a catena of decisions, mere representation does not extend the period of limitation and the aggrieved person has to approach the Court expeditiously and within a reasonable time. If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court should dismiss it at the threshold and ought not to dispose of the writ petition by relegating the writ petitioner to file a representation and/or directing the authority to decide the representation, once it is found that the original writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches. Such order shall not give an opportunity to the petitioner to thereafter contend that rejection of the representation subsequently has given a fresh cause of action.” The Hon'ble Apex Court in the landmark case on the principles of compassionate appointment in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and the relevant paragraph No.6 is extracted hereunder:- “6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” 5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of J&K & ors v. Sajad Ahmed Mir and the relevant paragraph No.11 is extracted hereunder:- 7 “11. We may also observe that when the Division Bench of the High Court was considering the case of the applicant holding that he had sought "compassion", the Bench ought to have considered the larger issue as well and it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive. merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say "goodbye" to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.” The Hon'ble Apex Court again in the case of Eastern Coalfields Limited v. Anil Badyakar&ors has held and reiterated the general principle that the appointment under compassionate grounds is not a vested right that can be exercised at any time in future. The Hon‟ble Apex Court recently in the case of State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari reported and the relevant paragraph No.35 is extracted here under:- “35. Considering the second question referred to above, in the first instance, regarding whether applications for compassionate appointment could be considered after a delay of several years, we are of the view that, in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the government employee. In such circumstances, Courts or other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some othersource. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, as noted by this Court in Hakim Singh would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee.” 8 8. This Court with a view to ascertain the facts and the present situation of the petitioner had called upon, the petitioner to file an additional affidavit setting out the circumstance of his family. The petitioner, filed an additional affidavit stating that his family consists of his aged mother, two sons, daughter and wife. The petitioner submits that he had initially worked in a medical shop, as an assistant, and thereafter had operated a telephone booth. As the telephone booth was not remunerative, the petitioner is said to have set up a kirana store, which he is presently running. The petitioner states that various loans had to be taken by the petitioner and his mother to run the family and that they had in fact sold away a part of their house and have mortgaged the remaining part of their house for raising funds for their living expenses. The petitioner contends that he is still in an indigent situation and compassionate appointment should be given to him. 9. The father of the petitioner had retired in the year-2003 and the petitioner is still seeking appointment on compassionate appointment basis. As contended by the learned Standing Counsel, the concept of the compassionate appointment, is to ensure that the sudden demise or retirement of the person in hardness, on account of the factors beyond his control, should not result in a financial emergency for the family and that granting appointment to one of the members of the family would tide over the extraordinary emergency caused by the loss of income for the family. In the present case, the said situation does not exist. While, it may be true that the petitioner is having difficulties in taking care of his family, the fact remains that 9 the emergency situation which is sought to be catered by the process of compassionate appointment is not available. Apart from this, the silence of the petitioner, even after the Judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India, effectively reviving the scheme of compassionate appointment, would non-suit the petitioner on the grounds of laches. 10. For both these reasons, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Date: 09.02.2026 BSM 10 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No.17385 of 2020 09-02-2026 BSM