THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.9593 of 2023

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the impugned Lr.No.CGM(HRD)/GM (Per)/AS(Per & Ser)/PO-H/201-H1/2013, dated 28.10.2022, issued by the second respondent as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the instructions of the Government and also contrary to the judgment of this Court passed in W.P. No.14118 of 2014, dated 08.09.2022, set aside the same, and declare that the petitioner is entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds to any suitable post.

2) The case of the petitioner is that her father viz., R. Venkat Narayana has expired on 13.05.2013, while working as Lineman in the respondent Corporation, by which time, he was having the left over service of 7 years 3 months and 18 days. It is her further case that the petitioner and her sister are the only daughters of the deceased-employee and both are married and their mother has already expired in November, 2012. Further, though the marriage of the petitioner took place in the year 2005, her family is depending on her father’s income since her husband had no job and thereby living with her parents all along. Since their family is in distressed condition, consequent upon death of her father, and as there is no earning member in the family, she made a representation to the respondent authorities on 12.07.2013 to consider her case for compassionate appointment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.350, dated 30.07.1999, and Memo No.116417/Ser.A/ 2003-1, dated 08-10-2003. However, vide Memo No.CGM(HRD)/ GM (Adm)/AS(Ser)/PO-H/201-H3/2013, dated 09.10.2013, the request of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the spouse of the deceased has already expired on 22.11.2012 i.e. well before the expiry of the deceased employee. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed W.P. No.14118 of 2014 and the same was disposed of by this Court on 08.09.2022 by setting aside the order dated 09.10.2013 and directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment to any suitable post. Alleging disobedience to the said order, dated 08.09.2022, the petitioner has also filed Contempt Case No.289 of 2023 and thereafter the respondents have issued the present impugned order. Further, by recording the issuance of the impugned order, the Contempt Case was closed on 24.03.2023 with liberty to file a fresh writ petition.

Hence, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

3) Heard Sri P. Narasimha, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned senior counsel, appearing for Smt. K. Udayasri, learned counsel for the respondents.

4) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the mother of the petitioner is not surviving, petitioner and her husband are solely dependants on the income of the father of the petitioner, since her husband had no employment. Therefore, denying the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment only on the ground that her mother has already expired, is clearly contrary to the specific directions of this Court in W.P. No.14118 of 2014 dated 08.09.2022. The initial rejection order dated 09.10.2013 was passed on the ground that the spouse of the deceased was expired on 22.11.2012 i.e. well before expiry of deceased employee, who was expired on 13.05.2013 while he was in service, was not accepted by this Court and thereby set aside the said rejection order in W.P. No.14118 of 2014, dated 08.09.2022, but now, the respondents have invented a new ground to reject the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, contrary to the Rules in vogue. It is further contended that the second respondent has sit over this Hon’ble Court as the appellate Court and rejected the claim of the petitioner, which is untenable. There is no such condition in the Government Orders in Memo No.116417/Serv.A/2003-1, dated 08.10.2003, that compassionate appointment of a married daughter should be considered onl