1 APHC010552802024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] SATURDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 28906/2024 Between: N Pradeep Kumar ...PETITIONER AND The Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VUTUPALLI RAJANNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following order: Rejecting his representation dated 13.08.2024 made for appointing him as Fair Price shop dealer on compassionate grounds, is the grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition. 2. Heard Sri Vutupalli Rajanna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, originally the petitioner’s brother was appointed as fair price shop dealer for the Shop No.1339003 situated in Chagalamarri village and mandal, Nandyal district and he died on 27.03.2021. He further submitted that, after his demise, as the deceased wife has no intention to run the fair price shop, the petitioner, being the brother of the deceased, has made a representation dated 13.08.2024 requesting to appoint him on compassionate grounds, as a legal heir but, the respondent authorities have rejected his request on the ground that the petitioner cannot be termed as legal heir. He further submitted that the petitioner is entitled for the appointment under compassionate grounds as per G.O.Ms.No.04 Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS-I) Department dated 28.02.2014 as is he the legal heir of the deceased fair price shop dealer (petitioner’s brother) and he is not gainfully employed anywhere. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that, the application for appointment on compassionate grounds shall be made within a reasonable period to meet the financial crisis and it cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time. He further submitted that, in the present case, the deceased fair price shop dealer died on 27.03.2021 and the petitioner had made the representation on 13.08.2024 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds after a lapse of 3 years. As such the writ petition 3 is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 6. A perusal of the record would indicate that the respondent authorities have rejected the petitioner’s representation dated 13.08.2024 vide proceedings Rc.No./CS/815/2024 dated 16.11.2024 for appointment of fair price shop dealer on compassionate grounds on two grounds i.e, he does not possess the minimum education qualification (intermediate) as required and he is not considered as a legal heir as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.04 Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS-I) Department dated 28.02.2014 and only deceased wife/son/un-married daughter are termed as legal heirs. Even otherwise, as rightly contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, the petitioner’s brother (deceased fair price shop dealer) died on 27.03.2021 and the petitioner had made the representation on 13.08.2024 after lapse of 3 years. It is well settled that an application for compassionate appointment has to be made immediately upon death/incapacitation and in any case within a reasonable period thereof or else a presumption could be drawn that the family of deceased/incapacitated employee is not in immediate need of financial assistance. Such appointment not being a vested right, the right to apply cannot be exercised at any time in future and it cannot be offered whatever the lapse to time and after the crisis is over. On the very ground itself, the 4 petitioner application can be rejected. Therefore, at this length of time, considering the petitioner’s representation for appointment under compassionate grounds does not arise. Hence, the petitioner has not made out any valid grounds warranting the interference of this Court, therefore, the writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS