IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Ragiri Gopi - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 30235 Of 2022
Decided On : 26-07-2024
Compassionate Appointment - Writ Petition - G.O.Ms No. 687, G.O.Ms.No.145 - The court emphasized the need for compassionate appointments to alleviate family distress, ruling that technicalities should not obstruct legitimate claims.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought compassionate appointment after the death of his father, a government employee, but was denied due to a delay in obtaining a Family Member Certificate, which was required for the application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in issuing the Family Member Certificate was not the petitioner's fault and emphasized the need for a compassionate approach in considering such applications.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment due to a delay in obtaining necessary documentation was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the purpose of compassionate appointments is to alleviate family distress, and rigid adherence to technicalities should not prevent legitimate claims.
Result: The court set aside the rejection order and directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment.
ORDER :
(K. Manmadha Rao, J.) :
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief :
2. The facts of the case are that initially the petitioner’s father Late R.Yedukondalu was appointed as a health worker in the respondent No.2 Corporation on NMR basis and subsequently his services were regularized by the respondent No.2. While so, the said Late R. Yedukondalu passed away on 03.12.2017, while he was in service of the respondent No.2. Thereafter, as the petitioner is eligible to be appointed on compassionate grounds on sudden demise of his father Late R.Yedukondalu, as is provided under G.O.Ms No. 687, General Administration Department, dated 3.10.1977 requested the respondent No.3 for his appointment on compassionate grounds and the respondent No.3 in-turn directed the petitioner to produce Family Member Certificate of the petitioner’s father Late R. Yedukondalu for his appointment on compassionate grounds as is provided under G.O.Ms.No.145, Revenue (Ser.II) Department, dated 25.04.2015. While so, the petitioner’s brother Ragiri Venkateswarlu and two others have filed O.S.No.276 of 2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala for partition of suit schedule properties into four (4) equal shares and allot one such share to each of the plaintiff and to the petitioner and the said suit was compromised through the Award, dated 12.03.2022 vide Lok Adalat Case No.10 of 2022 before the Lok Adalat Bench, Guzarala, wherein the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to his brother, sister and step mother out of the terminal benefits of his father. It is further stated that, after much persuasion the Tahsildhar, Piduguralla agreed to record the petitioner as the son of the second wife in the Family Member Certificate of the petitioner’s father Late R. Yedukondallu. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application, dated 30.09.2021 before the respondent No.3 bringing to his notice that finally the Family Member Certificate had been issued in favour of the petitioner and requested him to consider the petitioner candidature for appointment on compassionate grounds. Whereas, the respondent No.3 without considering the fact that due to the delay in issuing the family member certificate by the Tahsildhar, Piduguralla enabling the petitioner to make an application before him there was a delay in submitting the application for compassionate appointment, rejected the same stating that the application submitted by the petitioner is belated one. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.3 and denied all the allegations made in the petition. It is contended that one Smt. Ragiri Kumari made an application on 13.12.2017 seeking for payment for funeral expenses claiming that she is wife of deceased Ragiri Yedukondalu. Thereafter, Smt Ragiri Rosamma filed an applicat
Compassionate appointments should prioritize alleviating family distress over strict adherence to procedural technicalities.
Compassionate appointment is a benevolent scheme aimed at providing immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased government employee, and the requirement of being a 'local candidate' should....
Compassionate appointments should consider actual hardships faced by dependants rather than strict adherence to procedural timelines, promoting social justice and support for indigent families.
Compassionate appointment is an exception and a concession, not a right, and should be made strictly in accordance with the rules. Long delays can lead to the rejection of compassionate appointments.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the policy regarding compassionate appointment and the applicability of subsequent amendments to the case of the petitioner.
Compassionate appointments must be made promptly following a breadwinner's death; delayed applications undermine their purpose.
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 p....
Compassionate appointment not a vested right; rejected due to delay, substantial terminal benefits exceeding limits, and family self-sufficiency.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.