Point of law: In the case of appointment considering the social and economic justice as enshrined in the constitution, denials of deserving cases are liable to be set aside. Further, the purpose of providing compassionate ground to a son or daughter or a near relative of the deceased government servant is to render assistance to the family, which is found in indigenous circumstances. Hence, in considering the case for compassionate appointment, the authorities are supposed to adopt a human outlook

ORDER :

The Present Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief:

“…..this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not considering petitioner’s request for appointment for petitioner’s son i.e., T. Bhaskara Rao in the respondents Visakhapatnam Port Trust in suitable post on compassionate grounds as bad, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in a suitable post in Visakhapatnam Port Trust on compassionate grounds with effect from the date on which the junior to the petitioner’s were appointed and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”.

2. The facts of the case as per the averments made in the affidavit of the petitioner filed along with Writ Petition are as under :

(i) The husband of the petitioner i.e., T. Narsing Rao died on 24-08-1990 while he was working as Hamali in the Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. After the death of her husband, the petitioner made an application dated 20-02-1992 to the respondents to provide employment to her on compassionate grounds. She also made representations dated 18-05-1992 and 23-01-1993. After considering the said representations, respondent No.3 in his Proceedings No.TRE/Bills/APPTTS, dated 10/11-02-1993, directed the petitioner to furnish proof of Educational Qualifications and Date of Birth certificate. Accordingly, the petitioner furnished all the relevant certificates to the respondents.

(ii) Subsequently, the petitioner proposed the name of her son i.e., T. Bhaskara Rao for employment in her place giving option to provide the said job to her son vide Letter dated 08-02-1994. Considering the said representation, respondent No.3 in his Letter dated 24-02-1994, directed the petitioner to approach along with Educational Qualifications and Date of Birth of her son to consider their request for appointment on compassionate grounds. Accordingly, the petitioner and her son approached respondent No.3 along with all necessary certificates on 08-08-1994. Again, another representation dated 06-03-1997 was submitted as there is no response from the respondents. Again, as per the instructions of the respondents to furnish other particulars, vide Representation dated 02-04-1997, required particulars are furnished by the petitioner. Respondent No.3 vide Proceedings dated 08-08-1998, rejected the request of the petitioners, on the ground that the claim is belated claim. On representation of the petitioner that there is no delay in making representation, respondent No.3 again vide his Proceedings dated 15-09-1998, rejected the claim of the petitioner on the same grounds. Therefore, the petitioner approached respondent No.1 and submitted representation dated 19-09-1998. On the said representation, respondent No.2 passed Orders on 28-10-1998, confirming the orders of respondent No.3 dated 15-09-1998.

(iii) After the death of the husband of the petitioner, when the petitioner applied to Traffic Management for settlement, the authorities of Traffic Manager’s Office insisted the petitioner to bring Succession Certificate from the competent Court as there is a rival claim. Accordingly, the petitioner obtained Succession Certificate and submitted the same on 18-05-1992. Subsequently, the Traffic Manager has processed for settlement and FSF payment was arranged. Since the petitioner studied 7th Class only, she opted her son’s name for compassionate appointment as bread winner of their family. Though the petitioner submitted application on 29-02-1992 and also on 18-05-1992 along with Succession Certificate obtained from the competent Court, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 rejected the claim of the petitioners without considering the claim of the petitioner in a proper manner. Under the sa