Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 30367
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J
. Mandava Venkata Sreedhar – Appellant
Versus
The APGENCO – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 11340/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G V Shivaji
For the Respondents: Nagaraju Naguru, K. Krishnabushan Chowdary
Compassionate appointment is a concession to alleviate sudden financial crisis (penury) and not a right; it requires strict adherence to administrative rules, including age limits and proof of indigence.
Headnote:(A) Compassionate Appointment - Nature and Purpose - It is a concession granted by the employer to rescue the family of a deceased employee from penury and is not a regular source of recruitment. (Para 11)
(B) Eligibility - Financial Condition - Where the family has been able to sustain itself for a significant period (e.g., 10 years) following the death of the employee, the claim of being in penury is unsustainable. (Para 11)
(C) Eligibility - Age Limit - Candidates for compassionate appointment must satisfy prescribed conditions, including age limits; exceeding the age limit precludes the court from directing such an appointment. (Para 12)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment despite the existence of an earning member in the family and exceeding the prescribed age limit.
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned action of the respondents in rejecting the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment vide Letter Lr.No.CEE/O and M/DR.NTTPS/ADM/C1/F62/ D.No.476/2017, dated 27.03.2017, and further action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment by extending the same relaxation on the terms and conditions as extended to others vide Memo No. GM(A)/DS(P)/AS(P)/ P0.131/42/99-1, dated 28.12.1999, as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the Judgement of this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 13954 of 2010 , dt 18.01.2021, as confirmed in W.A. No. 158 of 2021 , dt 16.02.2022, in the interest of Justice and pass such other order or orders.
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:
“…..pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned action of the respondents in rejecting the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment vide Letter Lr.No.CEE/O&M/DR.NTTPS/ADM/ C1/F62/D.No.476/2017, dated 27.03.2017, and further action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment by extending the same relaxation on the terms and conditions as extended to others vide Memo No.GM(A)DS(P)/AS(P)/PO.131/ 42/99-1, dated 28.12.199, 12 highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the Judgment of this Hon’ble Court in W.P. No. 13954 of 2010 , dated 18.01.2021, as confirmed in W.A. No. 158 of 2021 , dated 16.02.2022, in the interest of Justice…..
The mother of the petitioner who was absorbed as Mazdoor vide B.P.Ms.No.272, dated 31.12.1997, thereafter she was re-designated as Junior Plant Attendant, which is last category post in A.P.GENCO Service. She died in harness while working as Junior Plant Attendant on 16.09.2016. The petitioner herein filed an application/representation dated 11.03.2017 and 23.08.2017 enclosing all the required documents seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, and he also made a representation to the Hon’ble Minister for Energy, for the same purpose.
Even though, the petitioner possessed all the requisite qualifications, for non consideration of the petitioner’s candidature for appointment on compassionate grounds, the present Writ Petition is filed
It is further asserted that the petitioner learnt about the appointment of M. Amarnath S/o M. Govaardhana Rao, as a Junior Plant Attendant, though, Amarnath’s mother being an employee and earning member of the family working in Central Government as a Senior Section Supervisor in the P & T department and his father was a Divisional Engineer who died in harness. This is contrary to scheme B.P.M.S. No. 119 dated 10.02.1982. As a result, it is argued that the respondents cannot refuse the petitioner's compassionate appointment based on B.P.M.S. No. 119 dated 10.02.1982.
The respondents have filed their counter affidavit and it is asserted that in terms of BPMS No.119, dated 10.02.1982, when, “A child i.e. son or daughter, spouse of a deceased Board employee who dies in harness leaving his family in indigent circumstances, while in service, be appointed as Lower Division Clerk or equivalent post, attender and R.A. without the media of employment exchange, subject to the condition that there being no other earning member in the family, is not entitled for compassionate appointment. In the present case, the petitioner’s father is a pensioner in the respondent corporation, drawing pension of Rs.66,862
