APHC010391992021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 953/2021 Between: 1. SARIKA NAGESWARA RAO, S/O SARIKA TAMMUNAIDU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O KANAPAKA VILLAGE, VIJAYANAGARAM MANDAL AND DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, VIZIANAGARAM. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, NELLIMARLA MANDAI, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): to declare the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not appointing the applicant on Compassionate grounds on the death of applicant's father Sarika Tammunaidu, Office Sub-ordinate in 4th respondent's office who died on 25.09.2010 while he was in employment/service as illegal, arbitrary and p. 2 SRS,J W.P.(A.T.) No.953 of 2021 violative of Art 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to appoint the applicant into service as per his eligibility forthwith Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V SRI DEVI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: Heard Smt. T.V. Sridevi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S. Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services, for respondents 1 to 4. 2. The petitioner originally filed O.A.No.2171 of 2017 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, at Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) to declare the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner on compassionate grounds on the death of his father late Sarika Tammunaidu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), who died on harness while working as Office Subordinate in the office of the Tahsildar, Nellimanrla Mandal, Vizianagaram District - respondent No.4. as illegal and arbitrary. 3. After abolition of the Tribunal, O.A.2171 of 2017 was transmitted to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, and the same is numbered as W.P.(A.T.) No.953 of 2021. Page 3 of 8 SRS,J W.P.(A.T.) No.953 of 2021 4. The brief facts of the case are : The petitioner’s father died in harness on 25.09.2010, while he was in service, leaving behind his wife and the petitioner, his adopted son, as his legal heirs. Thereafter, the wife of the deceased made a representation to the Tahsildar for the issuance of a legal heir certificate. However, the Tahsildar, by endorsement dated 03.12.2010, directed her to get a decree from a competent Civil Court. (ii) Subsequently, the petitioner and his mother made representations dated 05.09.2011 and 17.05.2012 seeking the petitioner’s appointment on compassionate grounds. However, the petitioner’s representation was returned for want of the family member certificate, besides other documents. Thereafter, the petitioner filed O.S.No.61 of 2013 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, arraying Sannamma, wife of the deceased as defendant No.1 and the State represented by Collector and Tahsildar as defendants 3 and 4, to declare him as adopted son of the deceased and defendant No.1, Sannamma. (iii) In the plaint, it was contended that the petitioner was adopted by the deceased and Smt. Sarika Sannamma, when he was about six months. The petitioner got marked Exs.A3, A4 and A5 apart from Ex.A8, registered adopted deed dated 23.08.2010. The learned Civil Court decreed the suit on 30.06.2016, declaring the petitioner as adopted son of defendant No.1 therein p. 4 SRS,J W.P.(A.T.) No.953 of 2021 and the deceased. The trial Court recorded a finding that the petitioner was adopted by the deceased and his wife when he was six months infant. (iv) Thereafter, petitioner’s mother made a petition in grievance cell of the District Collector, on 21.02.2016, seeking appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds and the same was forwarded to the Tahsildar, Nellimarla, respondent No.4 vide Rc.No.1649/2016/A3 dated 19.07.2016, requesting respondent No.4 to go through the proposals submitted by the applicant and submit specific remarks regarding the petitioner’s eligibility for compassionate appointment. However, it seems that respondent No.4 has not submitted any remarks to the District Collector in this regard, and no action has been taken by the respondents in employing the petitioner on compassionate grounds. Hence, the above writ petition was instituted. 5. Respondent No.4 filed a counter affidavit, reiterating the contentions of the writ affidavit and contended that the alleged adoption is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.612 General Administration (Services-A), dated 30.10.1991, which lays down a scheme for compassionate appointment as permanent relief to the family of a government employee who dies in harness. The application for appointment on compassionate grounds was not made within the stipulated time i.e. within one year from the death of the deceased. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the petition. Page 5 of 8 SRS,J W.P.(A.T.) No.953 of 2021 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government pleader reiterated the contentions as per the averments in the affidavit and counter affidavit. 7. Thus, as seen from the pleadings, respondent No.4 did not submit the report as called for by the District Collector. However, respondent No.4 filed counter affidavit denying the entitlement of the petitioner. Regarding the main contention raised by respondent No.4, concerning G.O.Ms.No.612 dated 30.10.1991, Para 2(ii) of the said G.O., which is relevant, is extracted hereunder: “ii) The adopted son or daughter of the deceased Government Servant may be considered for appointment, if the adoption had taken place legally, atleast five years prior to the date of demise of the Government Servant.” 8. In the case at hand, as seen from the judgment in O.S.No.61 of 2013, the Civil Court recorded a finding that the petitioner’s date of birth is 08.12.1989 and he was adopted when he was six months infant, whereas the deceased died on 25.09.2010. Thus, the petitioner was adopted five years prior to the death of the employee. The State represented by District and Tahsildar are shown as party defendants to the suit. The finding recorded by the Civil Court became final. Thus, the contention of the Tahsildar, respondent No.4 that the alleged adoption is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.612 General p. 6 SRS,J W.P.(A.T.) No.953 of 2021 Administration (Services-A), dated 30.10.1991, is ex-facie contrary to the record and falls to ground. 9. Regarding the other contention that the application for appointment on compassionate grounds was not made within the stipulated time i.e. within one year from the death of the deceased, as per the record, the petitioner’s mother made an application for issuance of legal heirs certificate immediately after the death of the deceased. However, the same was rejected, by endorsement dated 03.12.2010, directing her to get a decree from a competent Civil Court. Thereafter, the petitioner and his mother made representations dated 05.09.2011 and 17.05.2012 seeking petitioner’s appointment on compassionate grounds. However, the petitioner’s representation was returned for want of the family member certificate besides other documents. The petitioner must necessarily annex the legal certificate along with other certificates/documents. In view of the endorsement, dated 03.12.2010 of the Tahsildar, respondent No.4, the petitioner filed O.S.No.61 of 2013 on the file of Principle Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram seeking a declaration regarding his adoption. After the decree passed by the Civil Court, the petitioner’s mother made a petition in grievance cell of the District Collector, on 21.02.2016, seeking appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds. Page 7 of 8 SRS,J W.P.(A.T.) No.953 of 2021 10. Whether the petitioner made application within time or not will be considered by respondent No.2, District Collector, if the Tahsildar, respondent No.4 submits the information required by respondent No.2, Collector. 11. Given the facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.4-Tahsildar to submit the requisite information sought by respondent No.2 vide proceedings Rc.No.1649/2016/A3 dated 19.07.2016, within six weeks from the receipt of a copy of the order. Thereafter, learned respondent No.2 shall consider the case of the petitioner for employment on compassionate grounds, keeping in view the judgment passed in O.S.No.61 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, and also other relevant material. It is not out of place to mention here that the petitioner shall submit the requisite documents to respondent No.2, during the inquiry. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 30.01.2026 IKN p. 8 SRS,J W.P.(A.T.) No.953 of 2021 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION (A.T.) NO: 953 of 2021 Date: 30.01.2026 IKN