Allowed

Yakkaluru Salma Rizwana v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Sept 2022WP/22295/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addressed a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner's mother. The court allowed the petition and set aside the rejection of the application, directing authorities to reconsider the claim for a suitable post within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of the 3rd respondent are set aside; respondents directed to consider the claim for compassionate appointment within six weeks.

Yakkaluru Salma Rizwana Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.22295 OF 2022

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶5

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶6

“…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in rejecting the petitioner’s application vide his proceedings Rc.No.2441/E2/2017, Dated 05.09.2017, which is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.612, Dated 30.10.1991 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional even inspite of several internal correspondences between respondents No.2 to 4 and consequently direct the respondents to appoint petitioner in any suitable post based on her qualification on compassionate grounds on the death of petitioner’s mother, who died in harness vide employment No.1037354, who worked as a MPHA (F) PHC, Kristipadu, Gooty, Ananthapuramu District and pass such other orders....”

¶7

Heard Mr. M. Chinnapa Reddy, learned counsel for the

¶8

petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-IV for the respondents.

¶9

During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contents urged in the writ affidavit. Whereas learned Government Pleader for the respondents placed on record the written instructions dated 02.08.2022, vide R.C.No. 2441/E2/DM & HO-ATP/2017 of the 3^rd respondent, wherein it is clearly stated as follows:

¶10

¶11

“Vide in the reference 3^rd cited an endorsement was given to the applicant and informed that as per the Govt., Memo in the reference 3^rd cited the married daughter is not dependent on her father/ mother even if she is un-employee and hence her request for Compassionate appointment was not considered.

¶12

In view of the above vide in the reference 11^th cited a letter has been addressed to the HOD i.e Director of Public Health and Family Welfare, A.P, Vijayawada for seeking clarification on providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Soon after receipt of the clarification the necessary action will be taken accordingly”.

¶13

Learned Government Pleader for the respondents would contend that a letter has been forwarded to the Head of the Department i.e Director of Public Health and Family Welfare, A.P, Vijayawada for obtaining necessary clarification, so as to consider the case of the petitioner on compassionate grounds and soon after receipt of the clarification, the respondent authorities will take further action in the matter and requested to pass appropriate orders in this writ petition.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in the case of “Ch. Damayanthi Vs. APSRTC rep., by its Managing Director, Hyderabad and Others”¹ wherein this Court discussed catena of decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court and also

¶15

1 2021(2) ALT 238 (S.B) = W.P.No.10340 of 2014, dated 26.02.2021

¶16

¶17

various High Courts and allowed the writ petition, which extracted hereunder:

¶18

14. For the above mentioned reasons, this Court pass the following order:

¶19

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed;

¶20

(ii) The word “Unmarried” is strike down in Clause-III of eligibility criteria of “Bread Winner Scheme” of the respondent Corporation holding it is discriminatory, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles, 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India;

¶21

(iii) The proceedings of the 2^nd respondent in Letter No. Dy.Sup/785(1998/14)/14/RM-VZM, dated 13.03.2014 is set aside;

¶22

(iv) The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in any suitable post under the “Bread Winner Scheme” of the respondent Corporation, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and

¶23

(v) There is no order as to costs.

¶24

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to pass similar order as per decision in Ch. Damayanthi’s case cited supra.

¶26

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,

¶27

upon perusal of the record and considering the submissions of

¶28

¶29

learned counsel, this Court pass the order in this writ petition as follows:

¶30

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed;

¶31

(ii) The proceedings of the 3^rd respondent vide proceedings in Rc.No.2441/E2/2017, dated 05.09.2017 is hereby set aside;

¶32

(iii) The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds on the death of mother of the petitioner in any suitable post based on her qualification, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and

¶33

(iv) There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

¶35

also stand closed.

¶36

DR.K. MANMADHA RAO, J

Date: 05.09.2022

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶41

WRIT PETITION No.22295 OF 2022

¶42

Date: 05.09.2022

¶43

Yakkaluru Salma Rizwana v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yakkaluru Salma Rizwana v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D Venu Babu Vs the State of Ap

B.Shankaramma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Tama Venkateswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V Jhansi Rani Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Murthuja Vali Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Katari Sridevi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh