SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 2875

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SUMATHI JAGADAM, J
B. RAVANAMMA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WP(AT) 629/2021



Advocates:
Sri N. Ramesh, The Government Pleader for Services - II

The existence of a family pension does not disqualify dependents from seeking compassionate appointment, as the scheme aims to provide permanent relief to families of deceased employees.

Headnote:(A) G.O.Ms.No.350, General Administration (SER.A), dated 30.07.1999 - Compassionate appointment - The petitioner sought to set aside the rejection of her claim for compassionate appointment following her mother's death while in service - The rejection was based on the grounds of the spouse being a pensioner and the petitioner not being financially dependent - The court emphasized that the mere receipt of pension by a family member does not disqualify dependents from seeking compassionate appointment, referencing prior judgments that highlight the scheme's intent to provide relief to destitute family members. (Paras 4, 6, 8)

(B) Compassionate appointment scheme - The court reiterated that the scheme aims to provide permanent relief to families of deceased employees, and the interpretation of pension eligibility by the government is not binding on the court. (Paras 6, 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner’s mother, an employee, died in service, leaving behind a family with financial challenges, including a physically handicapped husband. The application for compassionate appointment was rejected based on the spouse's pension status.

Findings of Court:
The court found the rejection invalid and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for compassionate appointment with all benefits.

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment despite the spouse receiving a pension and the interpretation of the compassionate appointment scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the compassionate appointment scheme is designed to provide relief to families of deceased employees, and the existence of a pension does not automatically disqualify dependents from consideration.

Result: Writ Petition allowed.

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking to set aside the proceedings in Rc.No.2551/E3/2015, dated 05.01.2016, issued by the 3rd respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and consequently, to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment with all consequential benefits.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

2. The petitioner’s mother died on 21-5-2012 while serving as a Thoty at the ESI Dispensary in Gandhinagaram, Visakhapatnam. She left behind her husband, four sons, and two daughters.

i) The petitioner’s husband is physically handicapped, suffers from health problems, and is unemployed. The petitioner resided with her parents, and after her mother’s death, she took care of her father.

ii). The 3rd respondent in Rc.No.2551/E3/2015, dated 05.01.2016, rejected the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment on the grounds that the spouse of the deceased employee is a pensioner and the petitioner is not financially dependent on the deceased. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleaderfor Services-II appearing for the respondents and perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in G.O.Ms.No.350, General Administration (SER.A), dated 30.07.1999, clarifications were issued for the appointment of a married daughter under compassionate grounds. Clause (4) of the said G.O. is extracted below:

“When there is only a married daughter to the deceased government employee without older or younger brothers or sisters and the spouse of the deceased government employee is not willing to avail the compassionate appointment such married daughter may be considered for compassionate appointment provided she is dependent on the deceased government employee and subject to the satisfying the other conditions and instructions issued on the scheme from time to time.”

i) The learned counsel submits that the petitioner's family members have provided NOC/Undertakings in favor of the petitioner. He further states that merely receiving pension by the spouse of the deceased employee is not a barrier to consider the claim of the deceased's dependents for compassionate appointment, relying on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.726 of 2020 dated 27.02.2020 , which was followed in W.P.No.10329 of 2022 dated 29.06.2022 . Paragraph 1 on page 3 of the order in W.P.No.726 of 2020 is extracted hereunder:

“This Court after hearing both the learned counsel notices that the short and simple question involved in this case is whether the petitioner is disentitled from seeking compassionate appointment on the ground that his mother is drawing pension. The rationale behind the scheme for compassionate appointment has been considered in many cases. The idea is to provide quick relief to the destitute family members of an employee who died in harness. Apart from that in OA.No.10983 of 2008 and in OA.No.4457 of 2015, a similar question fell for consideration before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal in both these cases held that the intention of the Government in providing compassionate appointment is to give „permanent relief‟ to the deserving members of the family of a Government service who died in harness. Therefore, in both these cases, Tribunal held that the mere fact that another family member is drawing pension would not disentitle an otherwise qualified candidate for compassionate appointment.”

and prayed to allow the writ petition.

5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Services-II points out that the clarification issued in Circular Memo No.3548/Ser.G/AD/2010-8, dated 24.03.2012, clearly states that where one of the parents of the applicant is in service or receipt of service pension and family pension and lump sum retiral benefits, the dependent child is not entitled to seek compassionate app

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top