Sundara Durga Prasada Rao, Vs the Chief Gen. Manager, SBI & 2 Ors.

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 7067 OF 2005

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sundara Durga Prasada Rao, S/o. Late Govinda Rao, R/o. Under the care of Ammisetti Sattayya, Jaganyakulapalem Via Draksharamam, Ramachandrapuram Mandal. East Godavari District. ...Petitioner AND

¶8

The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India Local Heal Office,

¶9

Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad.

¶10

The Chief Manager, State Bank of India Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

¶11

The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India Regional Office,

¶12

Visakhapatnam.

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied therewith, the High Court may be pleased to Issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari callings for the records from the office of the 3rd respondent pertaining the order dated 15-5-2004 issued under Reference No, (3-1)/PER & HRD/F 25/30 and to quash the same holding that it^IS i Illegal, arbitrary, unjust, malafide, without proper application of mind and against the principles of natural Justice and consequentially to direct the

¶15

Respondents to provide him a suitable job on compassionate grounds ini the Respondents Bank.

¶16

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2005(WPMP. NO: 9418 OF 2005)

¶17

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 pass an interim direction against the respondents to provide him a suitable job in the Respondents' Bank on ad-hoc basis to meet the penurious state of our family and to save them from starvation, during the pendency of the Writ Petition, in the interest of justice.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI, K SARVA BHOUMA RAO

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: SR! K B RAMANNA

¶20

DORA

¶21

The Court made the following orderr

K ? '■

7

APHC010251732005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶26

[3332]

¶27

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶28

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶29

PRESENT

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO: 7067/2005

¶32

Between:

¶33

Sundara Durga Prasada Rao,

¶34

...PETITIONER

¶35

AND

¶36

The Chief Gen Manager SBl and 2 others

¶37

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶39

K SARVA BHOUMA RAO

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶41

1.KB RAMANNA DORA

¶42

E MADAN MOHAN RAO

¶43

The Court made the following order:

¶44

Questioning the order dated 15.05.2004 passed by respondent^No.3 vide Ref. No.(3-1)/PER & HRD/F 25/30, the present Writ^{Petitionisfiled.}

¶45

The case of the petitioner is that his father Sri S.Govinda^Rao,whowas working as Record Keeper in the office of respondent^{No.3,expiredwhilein} service due to heart attack on 24.03.2000 leaving behind^{him,hismotherand} sister besides the petitioner. The petitioner’s mother^{madeanapplicationto}

¶46

2

¶47

\

¶48

respondent No.3 to provide any nature of job to the petitioner on compassionate grounds, for which there is no response from respondent No.3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner along with his mother went to all the respondents, who after a lapse of two years time, sent a letter dated 02.09.2002 informing the petitioner that the application for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected on the ground that the financial condition of the family of the petitioner^{cannotbetermed} as penurious by citing the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme^CourtinSri Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & others^ The petitioner’s^mother made another application dated 29.08.2003 narrating the financial condition of the deceased, but the respondents paid deaf ear, as such, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.4137 of 2004 and this Court vide order dated 16.03.2004 directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order as per rules, regulations and guidelines. The said order was served on the respondents on 16.03.2004, but they did not make any further enquiry into the case, nor called for personal hearing of the petitioner, however served with an order dated 15.05.2004 rejecting the request of the petitioner on the ground that the financial condition of their family cannot be termed as penurious. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶49

Heard Sri K.Sarvabhouma Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.B.Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for respondents.

' 1994(4) see 138

3

\J

elaboration to what has been 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in stated in the affidavit contended that due to the sudden death of^deceased, the deceased was the sole the family members have become helpless, as breadwinner of his family. He further submitted that^{intheimpugnedorder,the} respondents did not discuss the financial position in terms of the documents produced by the petitioner. The impugned order is highly unsustainable and be set aside and accordingly prayed to pass orders in the same is liable to that regard. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents^{whilereiterating} _ £ i.U the contents of the counter contended that during the iife time Ui Ulc; deceased, he performed the marriage of his daughter,^{assuch,sheisnota} of the deceased. At the time of death of deceased,^{thepetitioner} dependent was aged 20 years and he is capable of supporting himself on his own. The Bank refused to appoint the petitioner on compassionate^grounds after considering the financial position of the family as^{pertheguidelinesprovided} under the scheme and in consonance with the judgment^{renderedbythe} Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. He further submitted^{thattheWidowofthe} deceased has also opted for family pension at Ramchandrapuram^Branchand from the branch apart from pension under she has been drawing the same Mutual Welfare Scheme. The financial position of the petitioner is not such, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate penurious, as

¶54

appointment. The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed in limini, as the same is devoid of merits and accordingly prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶55

Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is an admitted fact that the father of the petitioner died due to heart attack on 24.03.2000 while he was working as a Record Keeper in the office of respondent No.3. It is also an admitted fact that during the life of deceased, he has performed the marriage of his daughter, as such, the petitioner and his mother are the only legal heirs of the deceased employee.

¶56

In the judgment of Sri Umesh Kumar (1®' cited supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that;

¶57

"The whole object of granting comDassionatf^ suaaen crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased^ What Is further, mere death of an employee in livelihood. The Government or the public authoritv fZfy'lhhe^^ ^’ooooial condition of the hi f f deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied that abte°toZj^i°fZ'°'' the family will not be able to meet the cnsis that a job Is to be oLred to the nZlbe P^o^'^od a scheeT or ruefs provide for the same. This Court further clarified in the said wWc/ appointment Is not a vested right Which can be exercised at any time after the death of a government servant That the object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of thrKscie breadwinner. compassionate' employment cannot be claimed and offered after lapse of

¶58

5

¶59

considerable amount of time and after the crisis is overcome. ”

¶60

Perusal of the above would make it clear that the financial^conditionof the family of the deceased has to be examined by the^{authorityconcernedand} if it is satisfied that the financial condition of the family will not be able to meet the crisis, then only job to be offered to the eligible^{memberofthefamilyas} per the rules.

¶61

Perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the authority concerned has examined the proposal of the petitioner^{forcompassionate} appointment and found that the condition of the family^{couldnotbetermedas} penurious, as such, the said proposal was declined by the competent authority.

¶62

In Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Hakim Singh^,^theHon’ble Apex Court held that:

¶63

“This Court placed much emphasis on the need for immediacy in the manner in which claims for compassionate appointment are made by the dependants and decided by the concerned authority. This Court cautioned that it should not be forgotten that the object of compassionate appointment is to give succor to the^family to tide over the sudden financial crisis that has befallen^the dependants on account of the untimely demise of its^sole earning member. Therefore, this Court held that it^would not be justified in directing appointment for the claimants therein on compassionate grounds, fourteen years after^the death of the government employee. That such a direction would amount to treating a claim for compassionate

(1997) 8 see 85

6

0

appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession. ”

¶68

¶69

In the case of Canara Bank v. Ajith Kumar G.K^, the Hon’ble

¶70

Supreme Court held that;

¶71

“An application for compassionate appointment has to be made immediately upon death/incapacitation and in any^case within a reasonable period thereof or else a presumption^could be drawn that the family of the deceased/incapacitated employee is not in immediate need of financial assistance. Such appointment not being a vested right, the right to apply cannot be exercised at sin/_ y fime^; in, ifuture^i ^ onHi itif h\r>, Offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. ”

¶72

¶73

In Central Coalfields Limited v. Parden oraon'*, the Hon’ble

¶74

Supreme Court held that;

¶75

It M/as further asseverated in the said judgment that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period as the consideration of such employment^is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time^inthe future.

¶76

Perusal of the dictum would make it clear that the consideration of compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at

¶77

^ AIR online 2025 Supreme Court 184 (2021) 16 Supreme Court Cases 384

¶78

7

¶79

i

¶80

any time in future and it cannot be offered whatever^{thelapseoftimeandafter} the crisis is over.

¶81

Perusal of the record would indicate that the father of the petitioner died in the year 2000, the application for compassionate^{appointmentwas} rejected by the authorities in the year 2004 and the^{petitionerfiledthepresent} Writ Petition in the year 2005. Consideration of the petitioner’s appointment at this length of time /.e., after lapse of 25 years from^thedeath of his father would not arise.

¶82

In view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court^referred supra with regard to compassionate appointment and^{takingintoconsideration} the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the : f impugned' order warrants no interference and the petitioner^{isnotentitledfor} compassionate appointment.

¶83