ORDER :

1. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they were heard together and being disposed of by way of this common order.

2. Heard Sri C.Raghu, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.2288 of 2022 and Sri P.Ravi Shankar, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.35834 of 2022, and learned Government Pleader for Services-IV appearing for respondent No.1, and Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel for respondents 2 to 4 in W.P.No.2288 of 2023; Ms.V.Uma Devi, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 in W.P.No.35384 of 2022.

The case of the petitioner in W.P.No.2288 of 2022

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that father of the petitioner viz., Thota Venkateswar Rao died on 10.09.2019 while he was in service as Dozer Operator in KTPS O&M, leaving behind the petitioner, his brother and mother as his legal heirs, who are the dependants of on the deceased. After death of his father the petitioner made a representation to the respondents authorities for providing employment, on compassionate grounds, but the same was rejected on 27.03.2021 through the impugned letter on the ground that the mother of the petitioner viz., Thota Laxmi is receiving family pension of Rs.41,823/- and the grandmother of the petitioner also receiving pension of Rs.30,000/- per month, and hence the dependant family members of the deceased employee are not in indigent condition as per Clause 3 (i) under B.P.Ms.No.119 dated 10.02.1982, which stipulates that the dependants of the deceased employee, who dies in harness leaving behind his family in indigent circumstances only, are entitled for employment under compassionate grounds which is against very scheme of formulated for providing compassionate appointment to the dependants of the deceased employee.

The case of the petitioner in W.P.No.35834 of 2022

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that father of the petitioner viz., B.Ammi Reddy died on 20.04.2020 while he was in service as Foreman Grade-IV in Coal Plant Operation, Office of Superintendent Engineer /O&M/RTS-B Ramagundam, leaving behind the petitioner, his mother and two sisters as his legal heirs, who are the dependants of on the deceased. After death of his father the petitioner made a representation to the respondent No.3 on 02.10.2020 through proper channel, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, who in turn forwarded the same to the respondent No.4. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted the application for job under the scheme of employment of the dependant, duly enclosing the relevant documents, such as No-objection certificate from the family Members, as sought for by the respondent No.4. While it being so, the petitioner received the impugned letter rejecting the application of the petitioner stating that under Clause 3 (i) under B.P.Ms.No.119 dated 10.02.1982 the dependants of the deceased employee, who dies in harness leaving behind his family in indigent circumstances only entitled for employment under compassionate ground and since the mother of the petitioner is receiving family pension and the petitioner is not entitled for employment under compassionate grounds, which is arbitrary, irregular and against very scheme formulated for providing compassionate appointment to the dependants of the deceased employee.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions further submits that mere sanction of family pension to the wife of the deceased employee cannot come in the way of giving/providing employment under the compassionate grounds and the Hon’ble Apex Court time and again reiterated the said principle. The rejection of the applications of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate grounds is nothing but circumventing the rules and also frustrating the scheme of compassionate appointment which was formulated to mitigate the loss or hardship caused to the deceased family and requested to