Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
B. Rajasekhar - Petitioner
Versus
Andhra Bank 2 Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 24086 of 2004
Decided On : 25-02-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14 and 21, 226 – Compassionate Appointment – Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the relief to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by calling for records relating to and connected with Proceedings No.666/3/R/65, dated 9th June, 2003 and set aside the same by holding it absolutely illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India. Consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground in any of the suitable post as per the scheme for compassionate appointment in any of the existing vacancy or by creating a supernumerary post in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as are deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Finding of court: To consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds pursuant to the direction of this Court to reconsider it, the respondent authorities it appears took an unreasonable stand by saying that they called the petitioner for interview as per the procedure provided under the scheme, but the real intention of the respondents appears to be to deprive the petitioner. – The object of scheme of compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread winner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. – The respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioner on humanitarian consideration keeping in mind that the family would not be able to make both ends meet. – Counsel for the respondents brought to the notice of this Court that from the date of death of the deceased employee (i.e.) 19.12.1998 till date (i.e.) after 23 years the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought in the writ petition. – But the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Smt. Subhadra’s case (3 supra). – In that case the petitioner’s husband died on 06.07.2003. – The Hon’ble Apex Court directed the respondents therein to appoint one son of the appellant on compassionate grounds after 15 years from the date of death of the husband of the petitioner therein. – Counsel for the respondents brought to the notice of this Court that from the date of death of the deceased employee (i.e.) 19.12.1998 till date (i.e.) after 23 years the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought in the writ petition. – But the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Smt. Subhadra’s case (3 supra). – In that case the petitioner’s husband died on 06.07.2003. – The Hon’ble Apex Court directed the respondents therein to appoint one son of the appellant on compassionate grounds after 15 years from the date of death of the husband of the petitioner therein. – Objective of the scheme of compassionate appointment is a social security measure to help families of deceased employees. – Under the scheme, one of the dependent family members of the deceased employee, who die in harness, is eligible for appointment to a job in respondent-Bank. – Court is unable to agree with the stand of the respondents. – In the opinion of this Court, if such claims are rejected on such unreasonable and untenable grounds, the very object of scheme of compassionate appointments to help the destitute families would be defeated.
Result: Writ Petition Allowed
ORDER :
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:
2. As per the averments made in the affidavit filed along with the writ petition, the brief facts of the case emerge as under:
(ii) Thereafter, the respondent-bank with a malafide intention directed the petitioner to appear before the interview board for considering his case for clerical post. The respondent-bank rejected his case for clerical post vide proceedings No.666/3/R/65, dated 09.06.2003, on the ground that he is not suitable for appointment to the post of a Clerk as he was not able to write or read even a few sentences in English. Aggrieved by the rejection order, the present writ petition is filed.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. In the said counter affidavit it was admitted that the father of the petitioner was working as a Clerk in the service of the respondent-Bank at its Old Guntur Branch at the time of his death i.e., on 19.12.1998 and the deceased was survived by his widow, the petitioner and four daughters. The respondent-bank has settled the terminal benefits of the deceased and a sum of Rs.3,54,396/-was paid to the family of the deceased. The deceased employee had also availed housing loan and constructed a house at Guntur. The said loan was also closed with the Housing Loan Insurance amount received from LIC of India. The mother of the petitioner is being paid family pension over Rs.4,637-92 ps. per month. As such, the competent authority found that the petitioner’s family had sufficient means to live upon reasonably and declined the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.27078 of 2001 and the same was disposed by this Court vide its order, dated 11.11.2002.
4. Further as per the directions of this Court in Writ Petition No.27078 of 2001, the respondent-bank advised the petitioner to appear for interview along with all documents. The interview committee declined to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds as the petitioner unsuitable for appointment to the post of a clerk in the service of bank as he was not able to write or read even a few sentences in English and issued impugned proceedings. As such, there is no substance and merit in this Writ Petition. Therefore, the respondent-bank prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
5. Heard Sri Pratap Narayana Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material av
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
