Consent provided by the claimant for compassionate appointment is binding, and claims raised after a significant delay lack merit.

ORDER:

NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J.

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 5 in not taking action against the 6th respondent for his removal from service and not considering the petitioner’s case for appointment under compassionate rules as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :-

(a) The petitioner’s husband, Chintala Venkateshwarlu, while working as a J.P.A. Helper in KTPS Station, Palvoncha, died in a road accident on 27.12.1998. The petitioner and her two daughters, viz., Nagamani and Renuka, are the only legal heirs of the deceased. After the death of her husband, the petitioner sought death benefits and made an application to the respondents seeking compassionate appointment to her or to her daughters. Despite repeated requests, the respondent authorities did not consider her application. Subsequently, she came to know that the 6^th respondent, Venkaiah, who is not the son of her husband, was appointed under the compassionate appointment scheme.

(b) The petitioner made several representations to the respondent authorities to conduct enquiry and remove the 6^th respondent from service. Though the respondent authorities completed enquiry, the respondents have not taken any action against the 6^th respondent for his removal. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed a counter affidavit stating as follows :-

(a) Sri Chintala Venkateswarlu while working as JPA/Helper at KTPS, Palvancha, died in a road accident on 27.12.1998. The allegations made by the petitioner are not correct. The proposal has been received from the Chief Engineer, KTPS, along with an application submitted by Sri Ch.Venkaiah seeking compassionate appointment and also a legal heir certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Palvancha.

(b) As per the Legal Heir Certificate, the following persons are shown as the legal heirs of the deceased:

(1) Smt. Chintala Seetharavamma (wife),

(2) Smt. M. Nagamani (married daughter),

(3) Smt. S. Renuka (married daughter), and

(4) Sri Chintala Venkaiah (unmarried son).

(c) Along with the proposal, copies of the death certificate, educational certificates of Sri Ch.Venkaiah, and an affidavit duly notarized were enclosed. The said affidavit was submitted by the petitioner and her two daughters, authorizing Sri Venkaiah to be appointed on compassionate grounds as the son of the deceased employee.

(d) After scrutiny of the proposal, A.P. Genco, through Memo No. GM(A)/DS(PS)/AS(P)/B1-246/2000-1, dated 23.06.2000, permitted Sri Ch.Venkaiah to appear before the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose of compassionate appointments. On being found suitable, Sri Ch.Venkaiah was appointed as an Attender on compassionate grounds. The petitioner herself by submitting an affidavit had given consent for appointment of the 6^th respondent and therefore, her later claim that the 6^th respondent is not her son is false and an afterthought.

(e) No representation for compassionate appointment from the petitioner was pending at the time of Venkaiah’s appointment. On receipt of the petitioner’s complaint, a Vigilance enquiry was ordered to examine the matter. The report of the enquiry has been received and