P Venkata Subbamma Vs the State of Ap

ANDHRA PRADESH POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED, (APGENCO) REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR APGENCO CORPORATE OFFICE, GUNADALA,VIJAYAWADA KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶16

THE CHIEF ENGINEER, O AND M SERVICE, R.T.P.P V.V. REDDY NAGAR-516312, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT

¶17

2

¶18

THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER HR, AP GENCO, GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶21

1.M SIVA KUMAR

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.M. VIDYASAGAR, ( STANDING COUNSEL FOR APGENCO )

¶24

2.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶25

3.K.KRISHNABUSHAN CHOWDARY SC For APGENCO

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

3

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.8533 of 2024

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶32

“….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the Chief Engineer/O&M, RTPP, V.V.Reddy Nagar, YSR Kadapa District in issuing Letter No. 1073, dated.21.3.2018 rejecting the legitimate claim of the petitioners to provide job under compassionate grounds on account of the death of Sri D.C.Kondaiah, ManMazdoor/RTPP, APGENCO, V.V.Reddy Nagar, YSR Kadapa District who died in harness on 31.1.2016 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to appoint the 1^st petitioner or her son on compassionate grounds ignoring the limitation of one year arising under the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment as per the guidelines vide B.P.Ms.No.119, dated.10.2.1982 as adopted by AP GENCO.….”

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for APGENCO.

¶34

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioners only on the ground of delay in making an application for compassionate appointment. As per B.P.Ms.No.119, dated

¶35

4

¶36

10.02.1982, the applications will be entertained only within a period of one year from the date of death. But, in the instant case, the petitioners have made an application after lapse of two years. Only on this technical ground, the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioners for compassionate appointment. However, the respondents have to consider the socio-economic condition of the petitioners while considering the application for compassionate appointment and the same cannot

¶37

be rejected only on technical grounds. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the respondents did not consider the financial condition of the petitioners. The respondents have rejected the case of the petitioners only on the ground of delay.

¶38

Further, the learned counsel also relied on the orders passed by this Court, wherein reliance was placed on the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Balbir Kaur v. Steel Authority of India Limited¹ and also the Superintending Engineer v. V.Jaya² .

¶39

In Balbir Kaur ’s case (supra 1), their Lordships held as follows:

¶40

1 (2000) 6 SCC 493

¶41

2 (2007) 6 MLJ 1011

¶42

5

¶43

“In the case of appointment considering the social and economic justice as enshrined in the constitution, denials of deserving cases are liable to be set aside. Further, the purpose of providing compassionate ground to a son or daughter or a near relative of the deceased government servant is to render assistance to the family, which is found in indigenous circumstances. Hence, in considering the case for compassionate appointment, the authorities are supposed to adopt a humane outlook.”

¶44

In V.Jaya ’s case (supra 2), their Lordships comprising a Division Bench of the Madras High Court have held at para No.7 as follows:

¶45

“7. However, in a case of request for appointment on compassionate ground, however, the Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot ignore the very purpose of providing employment on compassionate ground to the dependant of an employee/government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else as it is done so in order to mitigate the hardship to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. The concept of compassionate employment is intended to alleviate the distress of the family and it is for such purpose appointments are permissible and provided even in the rules and regulations and any rigid approach or too technical objections may defeat the very object of the scheme. It is for that purpose while considering the request for compassionate appointment; the authorities are

¶46

6

¶47

expected to act as a Good Samaritan overlooking the cobwebs of technicalities.”

¶48

In view of the above judgments, the respondents cannot reject the claim of the petitioners for compassionate appointment only on technical grounds. While considering the applications for compassionate appointment, they should also take into account the financial conditions of the deceased families.

¶49

Considering the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the orders of this Court, this Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 21.03.2018 and remanding the matter to the competent authority to consider the application of the petitioners based on their economic conditions and if required, by referring the matter to the appropriate authority for relaxation with regard to age or other aspects and to consider the case afresh expeditiously. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶51

_______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶52

Date: 09.03.2026 Ivd

¶53

7

¶54

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶55

WRIT PETITION No.8533 of 2024