A public servant who is killed while not performing any duty as a public servant is not covered by the prohibition contained in Sub clause XV of Category II of clause 8 of G.O.Ms.No.91 Home (Paroles & HRC) Department, dated 16.08.2021.

ORDER:

The son of the petitioner was convicted on 17.08.2013 in S.C.No.438 of 2012, by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati, for an offence under Section 302 of I.P.C and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in the event of default of payment, to suffer a further imprisonment of two months. The appeal filed against this Judgment and sentence was dismissed by the High Court on 20.06.2019 in Crl.Appeal No.776 of 2013. The sentence passed by the trial Court was also confirmed.

2. The petitioner states that his son is presently undergoing the sentence. The petitioner further states that the name of his son was included in a list of 35 life convicts who were recommended for remission by the authorities of the Central Prison, Kadapa on the eve of Independence Day 2022. The Government after considering the said list and endorsement forwarded by the authorities of the Central Prison, Kadapa had released the actual list of life convicts whose sentences were remitted. However, the name of the son of the petitioner was missing in the list communicated vide G.O.Ms.No.121 Home (Paroles & HRC) Department, dated 14.08.2022.

3. Aggrieved by the said omission of the name of his son in the list attached to G.O.Ms.No.121 dated 14.08.2022, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

4. The petitioner contends that the omission of the name of his son without giving any reasons is against the principles of natural justice and is also discriminatory as there are no reasons why the name of his son has been deleted in the final list of persons to whom remission has been granted. The petitioner also contended that remission may have been denied to his son on the ground that the victim in the criminal case was an employee of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam and that it should not make any difference while considering the case of his son for remission.

5. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the son of the petitioner is undergoing life imprisonment in Central Prison Kadapa after paying the fine amount levied by the trial Court. The son of the petitioner is said to have served 10 years 5 months and 9 days of sentence including remission as on 15.08.2021. While things stood thus, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.91 Home (Paroles & HRC) Department dated 16.08.2021 setting out guidelines for grant of special remission to life convicts on the occasion of the Independence Day in 2021. Thereafter, the list of eligible life convicts, as per the above guidelines was called for by the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Andhra Pradesh vide Memo No.RC-2/74/2021-1 dated 16.08.2021. After receipt of such memo, the list of life convicts who had completed 7+3 years of imprisonment including remission which included the name of the son of the petitioner, had been forwarded for consideration.

6. This list was considered by an internal committee and the case of the son of the petitioner, was rejected on the ground that Rule No.8, Category-II, Condition No.XV of G.O.Ms.No.91, Home (Paroles &HRC) Department, Dated 16.08.2021 made the son of the petitioner ineligible for grant of special remission.

7. G.O.Ms.No.91 gave one time exemption to consider special remission in cases of categories set out in clause 7 of the said G.O. Category B of clause 7 enumerated cases of convicted male persons sentenced to imprisonment for life and who have undergone an actual sentence of 7 years including the remand period and total sentence of 10 years including remission on 15.08.2021. However, clause 8 stipulated that the persons enumerated in category-I and Category II of clause 8 would not be eligible for such exemption. Sub clause xv of Category II of clause 8 reads as follows:

“The prisoners convicted of murder of Public Servants while performing duty”.

8. The question before this Court is whether the son of the petiti