THE HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.31605 of 2017 And WRIT PETITION No.24486 of 2019

COMMON ORDER:

Writ Petition No. 24486 of 2019 is filed challenging the Memodated

06.02.2017 issued by Respondent No. 4-District Collector as illegal and arbitrary, and seeks a direction to respondent No.4 to appoint the petitioner as Panchayath Secretary on compassionate grounds under the medical invalidation scheme. And, Writ Petition No. 31605 of 2017 challenges the Intimation Letter Rc.No.Estt/Actt.1/2016-17 dated 04.04.2017 declaring the petitioner ineligible for appointment in the bank.

2. The petitioner’s father, who was employed as a Messenger in Respondent No. 5 bank, retired on medical invalidation on 11.08.2001 after suffering paralysis and loss of sight, with 5 years, 6 months, and 17 days of service left. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 14.11.2000 and subsequently on 04.11.2008 and 01.06.2015 under G.O.Ms.No.661 (dated 23.10.2008) which revived the compassionate appointment scheme for dependents of medically invalidated employees. Despite fulfilling the eligibility criteria, the petitioner’s requests were rejected without reasons, leading to these petitions.

3. Heard Mr. Ch. Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner (in both petitions); learned Government Pleader for General Administration (Respondent No. 1); learned Government Pleader for Panchayath Raj and Rural Development (Respondent No. 2 in W.P. No.

24486 of 2019); learned Government Pleader for Cooperation (Respondent No. 2 in W.P. No. 31605 of 2017); Mr. R. Guru Prasad, learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 in W.P. No. 31605 of 2017.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner’s father retired on medical invalidation with more than five years of service remaining, meeting the criteria under G.O.Ms.No.661. The petitioner made multiple representations which were either ignored or rejected without valid grounds, despite a prior court order directing consideration. The petitioner is qualified with a B.Comdegree and computer knowledge, and thus entitled to compassionate appointment as per the rules. The rejection letters and memos are illegal and arbitrary.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4, based on the counter affidavit, contends that under amended Section 115-D (2)(iv) of the TSCS Act, the bank has autonomy over staffing. According to G.O.Ms.No.661, compassionate appointments must be in the same unit where the employee worked and are limited to cases with five years of leftover service counted from retirement order date, and compassionate appointments are capped at

5% of direct recruitment vacancies.

6. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it is to be noted at the outset that it remained unrebutted contention of the petitioner that his father had a service of over five years left as on the date of his retirement on 11.08.2001, fulfilling the key condition under G.O.Ms.No.661 for compassionate appointment. The petitioner’s multiple applications were not considered properly, and the rejection memo dated 06.02.2017 failed to provide reasons. Respondent No. 4’s own counter admitted the leftover service eligibility. The scheme was scraped in 2002 and revived later in 2008. The District Collector, vide letter No.Estt/Acctt.1/F.216/2000-2001 dated 04.11.2001 addressed to the Chief Secretary placed the details with regard to the Application submitted by Sri Shaik Dastagir, Messenger, wherein it is stated as follows:

“Sri Shaik Dastagir, Messenger of the Nalgonda District Co-operative Central Bank has applied for retirement on Medical Invalidation on 14.11.2000. The individual was having left over service of 5 years 4 months at the time of issue of medical invalidation certificate. But there was some administrative delay in processing the file, resulting in shortfall in the leftover service. The details of the case, from date of application for retirement on medical invalidati