Kum S.K.Karishma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in

¶19

2

¶20

the nature of the writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the Petitioners compassionate appointment application on the ground of not attaining the age of 18 years within two years from the date of demise of the deceased employee after lapse of 8 years vide Memo. No. FIN02-11033/53/2019-A-SEC-DTA, Dated 10.03.2020 despite a detailed report submitted to the 2nd respondent by the 4th respondent vide R.C. No. 10858/A3/2019, dated 04.10.2019 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider and appoint the Petitioner in any suitable post on compassionate grounds on par with other department applicant i.e Kum O. Beaulah Susmitha who got employment under compassionate grounds by virtue of G.O. Rt No. 366 Health, Medical and Family Welfare (K2) Department, dated 13.03.2012 and pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case on par with other department applicant i.e Kum O. Beaulah Susmitha who got employment under compassionate grounds by virtue of G.O. Rt No. 366 Health, Medical & Family Welfare (K2) Department, dated 13.03.2012, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.KARUPOLU NARASIMHA RAO

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

¶27

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

3

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO: 21390 of 2020

¶32

The court made the following order: -

¶33

Heard Sri Karupolu Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶34

The instant writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the respondents rejecting the petitioner's application for appointment on compassionate grounds. The grounds on which the application filed by the petitioner was dismissed were that it was not submitted within two years from the date of death of the petitioner's mother, as provided under G.O.Ms No. 165, G.A(Ser-A) Dept., dated 20-03-1989.

¶35

It is contended that the petitioner's father died while in service. The petitioner's mother was appointed on compassionate grounds as an office subordinate on 31-10-2003 and died on 21-06-2006. The petitioner was a minor as of the date of the death of her mother. After attaining the majority, she had applied for an appointment on 04-02-2012. However, the same was rejected on the ground that the same had been filed belatedly after 6 years of the death of the petitioner's mother.

¶36

It is contended that the petitioner had lost both her parents in her early childhood and her grandmother had brought her up. Placing reliance on G.O.Rt.No.366 dated 13-03-2012, in which a similarly situated candidate was

¶37

4

¶38

considered for appointment on compassionate grounds, the instant writ petition is filed.

¶39

The respondents filed a counter affidavit contending that, to seek appointment on compassionate grounds, the dependant family member of the deceased employee should be a person who has attained majority and that the application should be filed within 2 years of the deceased employee's death. Since the petitioner has applied after 6 years of the death of her mother, she is not entitled to seek appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶40

Considered the submissions. The objective of a compassionate appointment scheme in any organisation is to enable the family of the deceased to recover from the sudden loss of income. To her misfortune, the petitioner lost both her parents, who were working in the department, in her early childhood, when she was a minor and was brought up by her grandmother. Soon after attaining her majority, she applied for her case to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. In such circumstances, the respondents are required to assess the claim from a humane and pragmatic perspective, rather than rejecting it on mere technical grounds, to extend the benefit of the scheme.

¶41

Having regard to the above the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in any suitable past having regard to her educational qualifications.

¶42

5

¶43