Allowed

B. Kodanda Chetty v. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Jul 2022WP/21555/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the TTD's rejection of appointment to the preferred Junior Assistant cadre despite seniority. The court held that allocating a higher post to a junior claimant while denying similar posts to seniors violates seniority principles.

What did the court decide?

to appoint the petitioner as Junior Assistant based on seniority or at least as Shroff/Assistant with effect from 19.03.2014 along with consequential benefits.

B. Kodanda Chetty Vs Tirumala… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.21555 of 2020

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-

¶5

“ to call for the records pertaining to ROC No E3/4465/2019 dated 01 08 2019 issued by R 1 /TTD as bad illegal unfair arbitrary discriminatory and unconstitutional and consequently direct the R1 to appoint the petitioner as junior assistant based on his seniority amongst claimants under medical invalidation grounds basing on availability of such vacancy with all consequential benefits or alternatively at least appoint the petitioner as Shroff/Assistant with effect from 19 03 2014 the date on which the party respondent No 2 who is admittedly junior to the petitioner in the list of claimants under MIG with all consequential benefits by issuance of writ of mandamus and to pass such other or further orders……. ”

¶6

The brief facts of the case are that the mother of the petitioner Smt B.Suseela, Multi-Purpose Worker (MPW) retired from service on medical invalidation grounds vide proceedings dated 16.08.2011. She applied for appointment of her son i.e., the petitioner herein for appointment under medical invalidation grounds vide representation dated 08.09.2011. the petitioner also submitted a representation dated 08.11.2011 for the same purpose. The petitioner is a graduate and he submitted all the necessary documents for appointment as sought for by the respondent.

¶7

¶8

The 1^st respondent vide Notice in Rc.No.E2/17181/2013, dated 06.01.2014 informed the petitioner and other such similar claimants that compassionate appointment on medical invalidation grounds shall be limited to 5% of direct recruitment vacancies. The 2^nd respondent was appointed as Shroff/Assistant in the 1^st respondent organization vide proceedings No.E4/3581/2014, dated 19.03.2014. Subsequently, the petitioner made a representation dated 26.02.2016 seeking for appointment under Medical Invalidation grounds. Thereafter, vide proceedings dated 02.05.2016, the petitioner was appointed as Office Subordinate. Accordingly, the petitioner made another representation dated 23.11.2016 raising the issue of injustice of appointing him as Office Subordiante/Attender while appointing others as Junior Assistant and/or such similar posts.

¶9

It is further stated that the petitioner has filed W.P.No.7358 of 2019 before this Court and the same was disposed of on 14.06.2019 directed the TTD authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 26.02.2016, 23.11.2016 and 19.02.2019 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In pursuance of the same, the respondent No.1/TTD allegedly considered the representations of the petitioner under purported implementation of the order of this Court referred above and rejected the same vide proceedings vide Roc.No.E3/4465/2019, dated 01.08.2019, which is impugned in the present writ petition.

¶10

¶11

Counter affidavit is filed by the 1^st respondent denying all the averments made in the petition and contended that the dependents of employees retired on MIG informed that, the date of retirement on MIG is to be taken as criteria to count for priority for providing compassionate appointment to the post of Junior Assistant and prepared list of cases pending on MIG vide Notice Roc.No.E2/17181/2013, dated 6.1.2014 and accordingly the name of the mother of the petitioner retired on 17.8.2011 and applied for appointment on 8.11.2011 was mentioned as Sl.No.2, whereas, the father of the 2^nd respondent retired on 30.11.2012 and applied for appointment on 10.01.2013 was mentioned at Sl.No.3. subsequently the 2^nd respondent requested to provide employment in the cadre of Shroff/Assistant under compassionate grounds at an early date, for which she has been facing lot of financial crises vide her representations dated 4.2.2014, 10.2.2014, 25.2.2014 and 4.3.2014. accordingly, the management considered her request and issued appointment orders to her as Shroff/Assistant vide proc dated 19.3.2014. However, at that time, the petitioner did not file any objection of her appointment and kept silent till his turn to the post of Junior Assistant under MIG quota.

¶12

At this juncture, the Devasthanams Law Officer, TTD, Tirupati has opined that “Appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such cases pending for years. As such, in view of the urgency and need, the object of granting compassionate

¶13

¶14

appointment is thus to enable the family to ride over the sudden crisis.” Accordingly, the petitioner herein along with others was appointed as Office Sub-ordinates in the existing vacancies under MIG quota. It is further stated that there were no vacancies available in the cadre of Junior Assistant in the quota of MIG as on that date. As per availability of vacancies in TTD ignoring their qualifications though they were fit to be appointed as Junior Assistants, the petitioner and others have submitted their willingness to take the post of Office Subordinates due to non-availability of vacancies in the cadre of Junior Assistant.

¶15

The Government in its G.O.Ms.No.687 GAD (Ser.A) Department, dated 03.10.1997 provided scheme of compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased for immediate relief. Further, the Government in its G.O.Ms.No.661 GA (Ser.G) Department, dated 23.10.2008 ordered that, 5% of vacancies earmarked for D.R. can be utilized for providing MIG appointments. In the G.O.Ms.No.504 GA (Ser.A) Department, dated 30.07.1980 ordered that, the eligible person shall be appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk or equivalent post or any other lower post. Thus, having the mere qualification will not entitle a candidate for a particular post without availability of vacancy under MIG quota. The case of the petitioner along with others was kept pending, to provide appointment as Junior Assistant (as per willingness submitted by them) for want of vacancy under 5% MIG quota. All the appointments have been made as

¶16

¶17

per Rules and stated that the delay is on the part of the petitioner. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶18

Reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition and counter contended that the 2^nd respondent was appointed in the year 2014 as Shroff/Assistant and the petitioner was appointed as Office Sub-ordinate in the year 2016 and when he noticed this injustice he made representations and finally he filed WP No.7358 of 019 before this Court which was disposed of directed the TTD to consider and pass appropriate orders on the claim of the petitioner and the same was considered and rejected by TTD through proceedings dated 01.08.2019 and thereafter pandemic broke in March 2020 and the present writ petition was filed in November, 2020 and therefore by no stretch of imagination there is any delay. It is stated that the TTD admitted that the 2^nd respondent is junior to the petitioner in all respects but the TTD contended that she was appointed as Shroff/Assistant only on the ground that she requested to provide employment in view of her financial conditions. This is very strange. The request of the 2^nd respondent assuming it is made, cannot be the basis to change the seniority positions, which is unfair and illegal.

¶19

Heard Mr. J. Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V.R.N. Prashanth, learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent.

¶20

¶21

On hearing, this Court observed that the 2^nd respondent was appointed as Shroff/Assistant in the year 2014 and the petitioner was appointed as Office Subordinate in the year 2016. Thereafter, the petitioner made representations to consider his case and moreover, he has filed W.P.7358 of 2019 before this Court and the same was disposed of with directions. However, the request of the petitioner has not been considered by the 1^st respondent-TTD and rejected the same vide impugned proceedings dated 01.08.2019. This Court further observed that if there are no Junior Assistant posts and there is a post of Shroff/Assistant, the same should have been offered to others as per seniority and if seniors are not interested to take the same, then only the junior can be considered. No such thing was undertaken.

¶22

Learned counsel for the 1^st respondent placed reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Versus State of Haryana and others with Anil Malik Versus State of Haryana and others¹ , wherein it was held that, appointment-object of compassionate appointment, held, is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis and not to provide employment ” and in a case reported in State of Uttar Pradesh and others Versus Premlata² , wherein it was held that “ Appointment to suitable post”-connotation-Word “suitable” whether pertains to suitability of dependant based on

¶23

1 (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 138

¶24

2 (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 30

¶25

¶26

educational qualification and other eligibilities irrespective of post held by deceased .” However, the facts of the above cases are not applicable to the present facts of the case.

¶27

The main crux of the issue is that when there are no Junior Assistant posts within 5% and when there is a post of Shroff/Assistant, which is given to the 2^nd respondent not in accordance with seniority position, how is it justified to appoint a junior to higher post and appoint the petitioner and others who are seniors, to a lower position i.e., office Subordinates. There is no answer from TTD in this regard. In other words, the crux of the issue and the legal issue raised by the petitioner has not been answered by the 1^st respondent-TTD. The 1^st respondent has to act in accordance with law by taking into account the vacancy position in a particular cadre in the teeth of seniority positions of those who are claiming appointment under compassionate appointment, but cannot be decided based on the representations and the requests of the claimants.

¶28

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon considering the submissions made by the counsels, this Court is of the considered opinion that while setting aside the impugned order dated 01.08.2019 vide Roc.No.E3/4465/ 2019, directing the 1^st respondent to appoint the petitioner as Junior Assistant based on his seniority amongst claimants under MIG basing on availability of such vacancy with all consequential benefits or alternatively at least

¶29

¶30

appoint the petitioner as Shroff/Assistant on par with the 2^nd respondent’s appointment i.e., w.e.f. 19.3.2014 and also directed to pay all consequential benefits. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶31