THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.5677 of 2017

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“… declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not considering the petitioner case by relaxing the age in providing compassionate appointment by proceeding dated 31-10-2013 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust contrary to law, irrational, discriminatory, perverse, amounts to unfair labour practice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India….”

2) Heard Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mother of the petitioner Smt.Renukamma worked as Staff Nurse for 18 years at Government Civil Hospital, Achampet, and she died on 07.05.2010 while in service. Therefore, her father Ramulu made an application for compassionate appointment and the same was rejected on the ground that he crossed the upper age limit. Thereafter, her father also died on 05.05.2012 leaving behind the petitioner and her younger brother M.Rakesh. Due to untimely death of her mother followed by the death of her father, petitioner and her brother became orphans and there is no other earning member in their family. Learned counsel further submits that at the time of death of her father, petitioner was aged more than 17 years, as such, respondents instead of passing the impugned rejection order dated 31.10.2013 ought to have considered her case sympathetically on humanitarian grounds and provided employment to her on compassionate grounds by relaxing her age. Therefore, the learned counsel prays this Court to pass necessary orders by setting aside the impugned rejection order dated 31.10.2013.

4) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader while admitting the fact that the mother of the petitioner was a permanent Government Servant, worked as Staff Nurse and expired while in service on 07.05.2010, submits that at that time the petitioner was aged about 15 years 3 months and 9 days. As such, the father of the petitioner made an application seeking to provide compassionate appointment and the same was rejected vide order dated 06.01.2011 by the District Collector on the ground that he crossed the upper age limit. Thereafter, petitioner made an application seeking employment on compassionate grounds and the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 31.10.2013 as the petitioner was aged about 15 years 3 months and 9 days at the time of demise of her mother and therefore ineligible as per G.O.Ms.No.612, GAD (SER-A) dated 30.10.1991. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the respondents are justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by the respective counsel and perused the record.

6) As can be seen from the record, admittedly, the mother of the petitioner died in harness on 17.10.2010. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner i.e. the husband of the deceased employee made an application for appointment on compassionate grounds and the same was rejected vide order dated 06.01.2012 on the ground that he crossed the upper age limit as on the date of application. Thereafter, the petitioner made application on 31.07.2012 and the same was also rejected vide impugned order dated 31.10.2013 by referring to G.O.Ms.No.612, GAD (Ser-A), dated 30.10.1991 and Government Memo No.618/Ser-A/78-11 GAD dated

17.12.1979.

7) Here, it is necessary to make a note of the clarifications issued by Government in its Memo No.618, dated 17.12.1979, and relevant portion of the same reads as under:

8) Admittedly, the mother of the petitioner died on

07.05.2010 and at that time the petitioner was a minor. Therefore, in terms of the above Government Memo, the impugned rejection order was passed by the respondents and the same cannot be faulted with.

9) But, as can be seen from the addit