Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
Salla Divya Veera Brahmam, S/o Late S. Veeranna - Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh - Respondents
Writ Petition No.27500 of 2023
Decided on : 28-02-2025
(A) Government Orders - G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986 - Inclusion of names of legal heirs in seniority list for displaced persons - The petitioner sought to replace his deceased father's name in the seniority list for employment benefits under the rehabilitation scheme after his father's death without being provided employment - The court found that the petitioner, as a grandson, should be included as the scheme's intention was to benefit displaced families. (Paras 2, 10, 12, 13, 22, 25)
(B) Welfare Legislation - The court emphasized that welfare statutes should be interpreted liberally to achieve their purpose, ensuring that the benefits reach the intended beneficiaries - The strict interpretation that excludes grandchildren would frustrate the very object of the issuance of G.O. (Paras 14, 15, 18, 22)
(C) Discrimination - The court noted that not including the petitioner's name would amount to discrimination against him as a legal heir of a displaced person, especially when similar benefits were granted to others. (Paras 23, 24)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought inclusion of his name in the seniority list after his father, who was eligible but did not receive employment, passed away. The government had previously allowed similar inclusions for daughters-in-law but not for grandsons.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the petitioner must be included in the seniority list as per the provisions of the government order, and directed the authorities to consider him for employment.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner, being a grandson, could be included in the seniority list and whether the refusal to include him constituted discrimination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the definition of eligible candidates under the welfare scheme should include grandsons, as a strict interpretation would undermine the purpose of the legislation.
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
ORDER :
The above Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in not extending the benefit of the Government Memo No.23232/R&R-A2/2015-1, dated 26.08.2015 for inclusion of petitioner's name, being legal heir in the place of his father's name at S.No.69, while extending the similar benefit to others vide Government Memo No.ICD01/1238/2019-RR (C.No.1036703), dated 28.11.2019 and providing employment as per G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that the ancestral property of the petitioner was acquired for the construction of Sri Pothuluri Veera Brahmendra Swamy Reservoir of Telugu Ganga Project. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award and the petitioner's family was displaced and relocated. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.98 Irrigation (Proj.Wing) Department dated 15.04.1986 for rehabilitation and providing employment to the displaced person or their dependents. The then District Selection Committee scrutinized the particulars of the petitioner's father and incorporated his name in the list dated 24.10.2016 at Sl.No.69. The petitioner's father died on 19.04.2018 in a road accident. Thereafter the petitioner as well as his mother made representation to include the petitioner's name in the place of his father's name at S.No.69 and to provide any suitable employment. The respondents, in fact, considered the similar requests of legal heirs in respect of other persons, however the same was not extended to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition.
3. a) A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 4th respondent. It was contended, interalia, that the name of the petitioner's father S.Veeranna, S/o Bala Veeraiah was included in the seniority list of SPVBR of Telugu Ganga Project at S.No.69 based on the approval of the District Selection Committee on 25.08.2010 and the petitioner's father was not provided any employment. It was pleaded that the representation of the petitioner dated 11.12.2018 was not received.
b) As per Para 4 (ii) of G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986, the candidates eligible for appointment under the scheme shall be displaced persons or his/her son, daughter or spouse, there being no other earning member in the family.
c) The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.45 Irrigation & C.A.D.(PW:R&R-A2) Department dated 04.07.2012, wherein it was mentioned that all the eligible displaced persons or their spouse/son/daughter as per the provision already available at Para No.1 of G.O.Ms.No.98 Irrigation (Proj. Wing) Department dated 15.04.1986, whose applications were received within the specified time limit but could not be provided employment so far, due to administrative reasons, may be considered for employment as per seniority subject to fulfilling all other eligibility criteria prescribed for that category of job. This benefit shall not be extended to those displaced families who have already got employment under this scheme.
d) The Government issued Memo No.3750/R&R/A2/2015-1, dated 16.05.2015 rejecting the claim of inclusion of the name of the spouse K.Sireesha, in the place of her deceased husband (being daughter-in-law of original awardee). Later as per the orders, the Government issued Memo No.23232/R&R-A2/2015-1, dated 26.08.2015, and accorded permission on humanitarian grounds for the inclusion of her name in the seniority list.
e) The Government issued Memo No.ICDOI/1238/2019-RR (C.No.1036703) dated 28.11.2019 and accorded permission to substitute/include 10 numbers of displaced persons in the existing seniority list. Out of 10 numbers, all 9 displaced persons are sons/daughters of original awardees and the 10th person is the daughter-in-law of original awardee, whose spouse was deceased.
f) The Government on humanitarian grounds accorded permission to the daughters-in-law of original awardees for substitution/inclusion of their names in the seniority list in the event of the death of a spouse, but not to the grandson of the original awardee. The in
Welfare legislation must be liberally construed to include grandsons as eligible candidates for employment benefits, ensuring the intended beneficiaries are not excluded.
The State's policy providing jobs to displaced persons supersedes application deadlines, ensuring claims are honored despite timelines, supporting social justice.
Government policies for employment of displaced persons must be enforced without imposing unjust limitations, ensuring the protection of their rights and entitlements.
The court affirmed that displaced persons are entitled to employment under government schemes, emphasizing the principle of parity in employment opportunities for similarly situated individuals.
Displaced persons are entitled to employment under G.O.Ms.No.98 provisions; all affected parties must be included for fair process in judicial decisions.
Displaced persons are entitled to job applications beyond prescribed deadlines due to government policies and prior judicial rulings that relax such limitations.
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
