Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Telangana) 539

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
K. Jai Barath - Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India - Respondent
W.P. No. 23372 of 2013
Decided On : 26-09-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mahadeva Kanthrigala.

The rejection of a compassionate appointment must be fair, reasonable, and based on relevant considerations, and cannot be based on flimsy or illegal grounds.

Headnote:
Compassionate Appointment - Rejection of Petitioner's Case - Proceedings No.I-48A/Admn/2010.Compassionate/4360, dated 22/23.02.2010 and letter No.I-48A/Admn./2010/1714, dated 30.10.2014 - 19(9)/2012/D(Lab), dated 08.08.2012
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought compassionate appointment after the death of the father, who was a Mazdoor. The 2nd petitioner's request for appointment was rejected, and the 1st petitioner's subsequent requests were also rejected on the grounds of time frame and previous consideration of the 2nd petitioner's case.
Finding of the Court:

The court found the rejection of the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment to be unreasonable, illegal, and contrary to the relevant proceedings. The court opined that the rejection was based on flimsy, illegal, and malafide grounds, and directed the respondents to reconsider the case for appointment on compassionate grounds.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rejection of the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment, including the time frame for consideration and previous consideration of the 2nd petitioner's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rejection of the petitioner's case was unreasonable and contrary to the relevant proceedings, and directed the respondents to reconsider the case for appointment on compassionate grounds.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the proceedings rejecting the petitioner's case were set aside. The respondents were directed to reconsider the case for appointment on compassionate grounds within 4 weeks, taking into consideration the court's observations and similar cases considered by the respondents.

ORDER :

Heard Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Praveen Kumar Gadi, learned standing counsel appearing for respondents.

2. The petitioner filed this writ petition to issue, a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the proceedings No.I-48A/Admn/2010.Compassionate /4360, dated 22/23.02.2010 and letter No.1-48A/Admn./2010/1714, dated 30.10.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent rejecting the case of the petitioners for appointment of compassionate grounds as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to the proceedings No.19(9)/2012/D(Lab), dated 08.08.2012 of the 1st respondent and further direct the respondents to consider the case of he 1st petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in any suitable post.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows :

(a) The father of the petitioner was appointed as Mazdoor on 01.01.1975 and while he was in service as Grade II in the pay scale of Rs.950-1150-E.B-25-1400 with basic pay of Rs.3,875/-, died on 17.05.1998 leaving behind the petitioners and three sisters.

(b) The 2nd petitioner made a representation on 10.09.1998 to the concerned authorities for compassionate grounds. But the respondent authorities instead of issuing appointment under compassionate grounds as per eligibility/educational qualifications, made her to compete with other candidates in oral interview conducted on 22.09.2003 and rejected her candidature on the ground that she failed in the interview and to qualify for the appointment on compassionate grounds.

(c) The 2nd petitioner relinquished her rights to get compassionate appointment to the 1st petitioner as he is only one son to look after the entire family and the 2nd petitioner is not in a position to bear the entire family in these days without having any source of income due to harness and ill-health. Therefore, the 1st petitioner made a representation on 02.01.2006 as he attained majority in the year 2000 to the respondents requesting appointment on compassionate grounds by enclosing relevant documents.

(d) As there was no response on the said representation, the 1st petitioner made another representation on 15.02.2010 and the same was rejected on 22/23.02.2010 that the compassionate appointment shall be considered within three years of time frame and that the 2nd petitioner has already been considered earlier for appointment on compassionate grounds, but she failed to qualify for appointment on compassionate grounds and that there are no recruitments in the Mint at present.

(e) The father of the 1st petitioner died in the year 1998 while in service, after his death, his mother has been receiving family pension, entire family consisting of five members.

(f) The 1st petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking to condone the delay in M.A.No.919 of 2012 in OASR No.3621 of 2012 and the same was rejected on 21.01.2013 that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to maintain the OA. Hence, this writ petition is filed.

4. The Counsel for the Petitioner places reliance on the following judgments and contends that the Writ Petition has to be allowed as prayed for.

(a) Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 25.02.2021 passed in W.P.No.24086/2004.

(b) Judgment of the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 01.10.2021 passed in W.A.No.206/2021.

5. The Counsel for the Respondent places reliance on the following judgments and contends that the Writ Petition has to be dismissed.

(a) Judgment of the Apex Court datd 23.05.2012 passed in Civil Appeal No.6224/2008 reported in Union of India and another v Shashank Goswami and another, (2012) 11 SCC 307. Paras 9 and 10

(b) Judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India & Others v. Amrita Sinha, dt. 11.12.2021 reported in 2021 Law Suit (SC) 834. Para 10.

(c) Judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2004) 7 SCC 265 in Punjab National Bank & Others v. Ashwini Kumar Tanjea in Civil Appeal No.5256/2004 decided on 16.08.2004. Para 7.