Compassionate appointment claims must be made promptly; significant delays undermine eligibility and the purpose of immediate relief.

JUDGMENT :

Sujoy Paul, ACJ.

Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Ms. K.Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. B.V.N.Savitha Kumari, learned counsel appearing for Sri G.V.Shivaji, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. With the consent finally heard.

3. In this intra-Court Appeal, the appellants assail the order of learned Single Judge dated 30.07.2024 passed in W.P.No.17220 of 2020 whereby the appellants/employer was directed to consider the case of the respondent/Writ Petitioner for compassionate appointment.

4. The appellants herein are the respondents and the respondent herein is the petitioner in W.P.No.17220 of 2020. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to as they are arrayed in the above Writ Petition.

5. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are that the Writ Petitioner is the son of second wife of late Sarfaraz Khan, Loco Driver/RTS, who died in harness on 10.09.1988. The Writ Petitioner’s mother preferred an application seeking compassionate appointment on 22.06.1989. Thereafter, the Writ Petitioner, after attaining the age of majority, preferred an application in August, 2002 to the General Manager of the respondents-Department seeking compassionate appointment. In this application, the Writ Petitioner himself disclosed his date of birth as 23.12.1974. Thereafter, the Writ Petitioner’s mother preferred an application informing that W.P.No.15209 of 1990 was filed seeking compassionate appointment by Sri Ibrahim Khan, her step son, and the same was dismissed on 19.09.2000. Thus, by preferring a representation dated 16.08.2002 (Annexure P.13), a prayer was made to appoint the Writ Petitioner. The certificate issued by MRO dated Nil.12.1988 shows that the age of the Writ Petitioner is 14 years. Since there was a discrepancy in the age mentioned in the Writ Petitioner’s application filed in August, 2002 and the MRO certificate, dated Nil.12.1988, the respondents by communication dated 23.12.2009 sent the Writ Petitioner to Medical Board for determination of his age. In turn, the Writ Petitioner’s age was assessed by the Medical Board. By communication dated 25.01.2010, the Writ Petitioner’s age was assessed as 37 years. The Medical Board’s recommendation was initially accepted by Director (HR) of A.P.Power Generation Corporation Limited, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad by communication dated 25.01.2010. The same was later on cancelled by Managing Director on 15.09.2011. Later, the Writ Petitioner’s representation for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected by communication dated 15.09.2011.

6. Since no reasons were assigned in the said rejection order, it was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.745 of 2012, dated 03.09.2019, and the respondents were directed to consider the case of the Writ Petitioner afresh as per the prevailing policy and pass appropriate orders. In turn, the respondents passed detailed order dated 25.10.2019. This order became the subject matter of challenge in the instant Writ Petition i.e., W.P.No.17220 of 2020.

7. The case of the Writ Petitioner was that at the time his father died on 10.09.1988, he was aged about 16 years and the Medical Board’s report was duly accepted by the Department. As per the Medical Board’s report, he is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment on attaining the age of 18 years. The learned Single Judge opined that after having sent the case of the Writ Petitioner for determination of the age to the Medical Board, it was no more open to the respondents to not to accept the same. Resultantly, the learned Single Judge directed consideration of the Writ Petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS (RESPONDENTS IN WRIT PETITION):

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submits that there is no reason to disbelieve the age disclosed by the Writ Petitioner in his representation dated Nil.08. 2002. Although, as an afterthought, the Writ Petitioner’s m