HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.38944 OF 2022

ORDER:

Heard Sri P. Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

“…to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction one particularly one in the nature writ of mandamus declaring he action of the 3^rd Respondent in returning the Compassionate Appointment proposals of the Petitioner, vide Memo No.SE/OP/ADB/DE(T)/PO/JAO/ Adm/El/F.Job Prop./D.No.145/18, dated 12.07.2018, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the said Memo dated 12.07.2018 issued by the 3^rd Respondent and direct the 3^rd Respondent to appoint the Petitioner as Junior Assistant on Compassionate Grounds, with all consequential benefits, and pass…”

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner’s father, while working as Line Inspector with the 1^st respondent Company, submitted an application dated 26.06.2015 seeking retirement on medical invalidation grounds. The Medical Board of NIMS, Hyderabad, vide report dated 14.06.2016 and letter dated 13.08.2016, certified him medically unfit to continue in service. Pursuant thereto, the Chief General Manager (HRD) of respondent No.1 issued Memo dated

23.08.2016 forwarding the medical report to respondent No.3 requesting him to take necessary action, and respondent No.3 issued orders vide Memo No.DEE/OP/MNCL/JAO/ADM/E2/D.No.750/16, dated 02.09.2016, retiring the petitioner’s father on medical invalidation grounds. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 10.10.2016 enclosing with all required documents to respondent No.4, requesting to appoint the petitioner as Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds. Respondent No.3 forwarded the proposal to respondent No.2, but respondent No.2 returned the said proposal vide Memo dated 30.06.2018 and consequently, respondent No.3 issued the impugned Memo No.SE/OP/ADB/DE(T)/PO/JAO/Adm/El/F.Job Prop./D.No.145/18, dated 12.07.2018, rejecting the petitioner’s case. It is relevant to note that the petitioner’s mother also retired from government service on 31.03.2017, leaving the family without any earning member. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD:

A. The impugned order No.SE/ OP/ ADB/ DE(T)/ PO/ JAO / Adm/ El/ F.Job Prop./ D.No.145/ 18, dated 12.07.2018 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Adilabad, is extracted hereunder:

“Sub: Estt. - TSNPDCL, Operation Circle, Adilabad - Compassionate job proposals of Sri R.Sal Madhav, S/o. Sri R@T.Prathap Reddy, Ex-Li (Retired on medical Invalidation on 02-09-2016) - Not considered - Proposals returned.

Ref: Memo.No.CMD/Jr.Secy/GM(IR)/AS/PO.G/206/17-3, Dt:30-

06-2018.

*****

In view of the above reference cited, the compassionate job proposals in respect of Sri R.Sai Madhav, S/o. Sri R@T.Prathap Reddy, Ex-LI (Retired on medical invalidation on 02-09-2016) were returned by Corporate Office, Warangal for providing employment under compassionate grounds was not considered.

i) On enquiry, it revealed that as on the date of retirement and as on date of submission of application one of the family member i.e., spouse of the retired employee is in Govt. Service & earning member in the family and hence the condition as per B.P.Ms.No.247, Dt:17-03-1980 is not fulfilled. In this regard, SLA Sri Zakir Ali Daniesh has opined that as the spouse of the retired employee is a earning member in the family, the applicant Sri Sai Madhav is not eligible for employment under compassionate grounds.

2. Therefore, the proposals are rejected and returned along with all original and the Divisional Engineer Elecl.,/ Operation/Mancherial is hereby directed to intimate the same to the applicant accordingly and the report compliance. No further correspondence in this regard will be entertained.

Encl: All original certificates 1) De