G. Prasad Vs The State of Telangana And 3 Others

2 The Chairman - Manaoino Director, Telangana Southern power Distribution company Ltd. (TSspD'Ci), s#ajiA;J;. lil;Jrr"o"ri ''' The superintendent Engineer, Terangana southern power Drstribution Company Ltd. (rSSpDdLy, urbrruLLurffib-si;t;j^"' "'

¶14

4 lhe^{DivisionaI Engineer, Mglry!lqg g#fvisi} on, Teta n ga n a Southern^power Drstribution Company Ltd. (TSSpDi!)i',{Minorunr!ri 6irtri.t.

¶15

" .; ,....RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition Under Article 226 ot the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particurarry one in ,n" ,",rL'"r r^ir,, , Mandamus decraring the- action of the respondent No. 2 in issuing the impugned notice and rejecting the apprication of the petitioner under the compassionate ground and non-initiating to appoint the petitioner on the death of his father is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutionar and vioration of Articres 14, 1s and 21 and also violation of Naturar Justice and consequenily direct the Respondent No.2 to appoint the Petitioner as an emproyee under the compassionate ground oh the death of his father by treating the originar adoption deed dated 18t02r2014.

I

I

rt

1,

ii

l.A.NO:1 OF 2022

Petition Under section 151 cpc praylng that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No 2 to appoint the petitioner as an emproyee under the compassronate ground on the death of his father by treating the original adoption deed dated 18t12t2014 pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Gp FOR ENERGY

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDy

¶27

The Court made the following ORDER

¶28

t,

¶29

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶30

WRIT P ITION No.3467a oF 2022

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

Heard Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Energy appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos.2 to 4,

¶33

2. The Detitioner a I)Droa ched the Court seeki nq praver

¶34

as under:

¶35

"..-to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 2 in issuing the impugned notice and rejecting the application of the Petitioner under the compassionate ground and non-initiating to appoint the Petitioner on the death of his father is highly illegal, arbitrary, u n constitutiona I and violation of Articles 14, 15 and 21 and also violation of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondent No 2 to appoint the Petitioner as an employee under the compassionate ground on the death of his father by treating the original adoption deed dated lB/02/2014 and pass..."

¶36

l

¶37

SN. J

¶38

The case of the^petitioner in brief as oer the averments made in the affidavit filed bv the^petitioner in support of the^present Writ Petition is as under:-

¶39

The petitioner was adopted by one G.Sunder (hereinafter referred as petitioner's father) through unregistered adoption deed dated lB.O2.2Ol4, Iater on^petitioner's father came to know that registering the adoption deed is mandatory for all the future purposes, hence the petitioner's father once again executed the adoption deed in 2016 and registered the same on 30.07.2016.

¶40

It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's father expired on 16.10.2019, while in service, due to ill health. Thereafter the petitioner made a representation to the respondent nos. 3&4 seeking employment under the compassionate grounds and the said representation was forwarded to the 2nd respondent by the respondent nos. 3&4. But shockingly, the 2nd respondent rejected the compassionate appointment on the^ground that the adoption of^petitioner by the petitioner's father had not happened 5 years prior to the

¶41

7/ /

¶42

SN, ]

¶43

demise of the petitioner,s father. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition.

4 PE SED THE RE ORD.

A.T e order

imouqned

M o c M HRD GM IR.L l&A A Per r P

¶48

H 1 -H 2021 ated 30. 6.2 22 ass b h hi en IM na r H D ex a h un r

¶49

The attention of the Superintending Engineer/Operation Circle/. Mahabubnagar is invited to th; 3rdreierence cited, wherein, a representation with a request for providing the job under compassionate grounds in reJpect of Sri Gollapally^prasad. Adopted S7o. t_ate C. SunO-Jr, Ex_Tester 9l-1/L!^{LabM&p/DO/Mahabubnagar,} lexpired on 16.10.2019) has been received.

¶50

In this case, providi ng employment is not considered as per Board's Memo No. DPlDM(RNT)/po/GL/so4 2/94, dt.25.10.1994 the benefit of employment to the ad opted children was extended with a condition that "the adoption k le le fi e e de e th m and the same was directed to inform to th e applicant vide reference 2nd cited.

¶51

3..: The applicant has requested to consider his request ol providing the job quoting 3 No. G.Os

¶52

i). -G.O_^{y:,No.300, 1 &CAD (Ser_V)Department,} dt:09.12..2009, the job has been consiOe.eO'aft-er obtaining the dectaration from the Hon'bte a;fi ;i Law. The applicant has completed more than 5 yuurc oi adoption to request the job.

Y

4

5. J

ii) G.O Rt.^{No.BBB, T,R&B (Ser-IV)Department,} di:Za.07.2009,^{the individual Sri D Sastry,adoptedS/o'} Late Sri D. Immaneul^{has been provided with lunior} Assistant in the office^{of Regional Transport Office on} Compassionate^{grounds duly condoning the shortfall of the} adoption^{period of One month and eighteen davs only'}

¶57

iii) G.O.Rt.No. 1387,^{dt:20'11 2019 Sri VRavi Kumar'} adopted son of^{Late Smt. V. NlariyammaVillage Revenue} Assistant, has been^{considered forproviding the} employment under^{compassionategrounds by condoning4} months shortfall^{for 5 years as per rule(Adoption has been} done 4^years B^{monthsprior to the death of his mother)'}

¶58

In this reoard,^{t is to informthat, alI the above} ca were condo ed^{with a shortsoan ofmonths} and in the i nstant case the aool^{icant is reouestinq} rco nin arl r1 e rlOm nths which deviatino the^{Board'sMemodt:25.1O.1 994. The} same mav i nformed acco^{rdi nqIvandh e mava lso} be directed^{not to corresDond further in this reqa rd,}

¶59

B The releva nt Dortion^{of theG.O.Ms. No.3OO, dated} 09.12.2009 is extra^{cted hereunder:-}

¶60

In the reference^{3'd read above, the Engineer-in-} Chief(IW), Irrigation^{and CAD Department,Hyderabadwas} requested to direct^{the applicantto obtain and produce a} declaration^{from the competentcourt of law to the effect} that the applicant^{is the adopted daughter of the deceased} employee, for taking^{further action in the matter'}

¶61

In the reference^{4th read above, the requestof} the applicant for^{appointment under compassionate} g.ound-s was rejected on^{the ground that as the} Idoption had^{not taken place legally and the same} was not registered and^{also the Mohammadan Law} does not recognize^{the adoption as amode of} filiations, As such,^{adoption deed have not value'}

5

SN. J

7

T e ter ffi vt le on eh fofther s den

¶66

Nos.2 to a R oarticu la r Dara Nos.5 6&8 extra d ere nder:-

¶67

l.^Il luply^{to para 6 it is submitted that,} G.O.Ms.No.BBB, dated 24.07.2009 came to be issued to relaxlhe aOoption period of 1 month 18 days only as per Circular Memo N_o.6068USer-A/2003-1GAO(Ser-n) Oepartment, dated 1.2.08.2003, as a special case as the period was very much short.

¶68

!..11 rygtV^{to para 7, it is submitted that G.O.Ms.No.13B7,} dated 20.11.2019 came to be issued to relax shortage of 04 months only as a special case. Hence, the petitioner cannot take ad of G.O.Ms.No.BBB, dt:24.07.2009 and G.O.Rt.13B7, dt:20.11.2019, which'C.O,, *"." issued as special cases.

¶69

9:^Il i"pll^{to para 8, it is submittedthat, rhe pettioner} nas submitted a representation dt:Nil, received by this office on 09.03.2022 again requesting io provide the employmen_t on compassionate grounjs duly enclosing certain Government Orders 1.G.O.Ms No.300, dt:09.01.2009, 2.G.O.Rt.No.BBB, ol:ic.O7.zOOg, 3. G.O.RI.No.1387, dt:20.Lll2019 and aOoption document dt:18.02.2014. On examination of tne C.Oi submitted by the petitioner it was observed that, in all tfie 3 No.G.Os the individuals were considered for providing^- employment under compassionate grounds with a shortiall of span of (one) 1 month in one case, 4 (four) months in another case and in the last case it was the relaxation of the condition of obtaining the declaration from the competent court of law to the effect that, the applicant is the iegally adopted son of the deceased "rptby"". The deed of adoption dt:18.02.2014 being an un_registered has no legal sanctity, Hence, the appiication of t-n"-pltitioner for 019vi!i1S the employment on compassionate'grounds was rejected and he was informed accordinlty^-riO" U"ro dt:30.06.2022.

¶70

6

¶71

DI CUSSION^ANDCONCLUSIO

¶72

It is specific^{case of the petitionerthat the petitioner is the} adopted son^{of the deceased employeelate Sri G'Sunder and the} same is evident^{on perusal of the original adoption deed' dated} 18.O2.2074^{filed by the petitioner in supportof the present !Vrit} Petition.

¶73

Learned counsel^{appearingon behalfof the petitioner} submits that the^{requestof the petitionerfor seekingthe} job on the compassionate^{groundsto the petitionerherein} had been rejected,^{on the groundthat the said subject} adoption of the^{petitioner should have taken place legally} at least five^{years prior to the date of the demise of the} deceased employee^{i.e., the Board employee late Sri} G.Sunder.

¶74

Learned counsel^{appearing on behalf of the petitioner} submits that^{it is not mandatory to have a valid adoptiondeed} for the^{purpose ofrecognizing the adoption even as per the} Hindu Adoption^{and Maintenance Act, 1956 and furthersubmits} thatthereareinstanceswheretherespondentsherein considered an^{unregisteredadoptiondeed and granted the} ,-J.

¶75

l

¶76

,s\ .,

¶77

benefit of compassionate appointment and there are instances where the respondent State Government relaxed the period of five yeas treating the said cases as special cases, duly relaxing the shortage of the period in such cases, and extended the benefit of compassionate appointment, but however the request of the petitioner for providing compassionate appointment had been rejected stating that the petitioner is requesting for condoning nearly one year ten months, which is nothing but deviation from the Board's Memo, dated 2S.IO.lgg4 and therefore, the request of the petitioner for providing compassionate appointment cannot be considered.

¶78

B. A bare perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos,2 to 4 and in particular para Nos,S & 6(referred to and extracted above) clearly indicates that the mandatory completion of five (OS) years of adoption period had been relaxed, in respect of few others by the respondent State Government retaxing the adoption period of one month eighteen days in one case and relaxing the adoption period of four (04) months in another case treating the said cases as special cases, but however in the present case the request of the petitioner

<br>

8

SN. J

had been rejected stating that the same would amount^to deviating from the Board's^Memo, dated^25.10.1994.

¶83

A bare^perusal of the material documents^{filed by the} petitioner along with the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the^present Writ Petition indicates that^the request of another employee seeking compassionate appointment on the basis of an unregistered adoption deed having been favourably considered by the^State Government and GO.Ms.No.3OO, dated^{O9.12.2OO9 had} been issued in respect of the said adopted son of^Smt Shaik P,Begum on the basis of an unregistered^adoption deed.

¶84

It is specific case of the^petitioner that if the petitioner's unreg istered adoption deed, dated L8.O2.2OL4 is taken into consideration by respondents herein,^the petitioner would fall within the criteria that adoption should have been occurred five^{year prior to the death of} the employee and will be eligible for^{compassionate} appointment, as per the memo^relied upon by^the respondents herein, dated 25.10.t994,^{and admittedly as}

I

9

SN, J

borne on record an unregistered adoption deed had been considered in respect of other employee by the state Government vide G.O.Ms.No.3OO, dated O9.12.2OO9 and the compassionate appointment had been provided to the adopted son of late Smt. Shaik p. Begum, duly taking into consideration an unregastered adoption deed put_forth by the said employee in support of said employees, case.

¶89

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is arso entitted for similar relief and the respondents cannot reject the application of the petitioner herein for compassionate appointment unilaterally, on the ground that the same would amount to deviating the Board's Memo, dated 25.r0.1994.

¶90

L2. This Court opines that respondents are bound to consider the petitioner's unregistered adoption deed, dated 18.O2.2014, while considering petitioner,s application for compassionate appointment since an unregistered adoption deed had been considered and G.O.Ms.No.3OO, dated 09.12.2OO9 had been issued in

¶91

\

¶92

r0

¶93

SN, ]

¶94

respect of adopted^{son of another employee Smt Shaik} P.Begum.

¶95

Takin into consideration:^- a) The aforesaid facts^{and circumstances of the case'}

¶96

The submissions^{made by the learned counsel} b) appearing on behalf^{of the petitioner and learned standing} counsel appearing^{on behalf of the respondent Nos'2 to 4'}

¶97

c) The Counter affidavit^{filed on behalf of the respondents} and in^{particular para Nos.s, 6 & I(referred to and} extracted above)

¶98

d) G.O.MS.No.3OO,^{dated 09.12'2009 filed bythe} petitioner in support of^{petitioner'scase (referredto and} extracted above)

¶99

e) The contents^of the order impugned Memo.No.COM(HRD)/GM /IR.^{Lgl&Adm/AS(Per&Ser) / PO-} Hl15-HLl2O21, dated^{}0,06.2022 passed bv the Chief} General Manager(HRD)^{(referredto and extractedabove)} O^{The object of compassionateappointmentis a social} security measure to support^{the family of the deceased} government servant, who dies in^{harness' The aim and}

II

SN. J

I ; : I I I l !! :

I 1t t !I I I It, iiI i t $ 1t 1

¶104

object of the policy for compassionate appointment is to provide financial support to the family of the deceased employee, who left the dependents in distress and penury. The core aim of the object of providing compassionate appointment is to relieve the family from financial sufferings being faced for the sudden demise of the Bread Winner of the family. The sufferings being faced by the dependents of the deceased employee for sudden demise of the Bread Winner could be solved for some extent by providing compassionate appointment to one of the dependents of the deceased employee to look after the family. The said relief should not be denied on flimsy grounds defeating the very object of the compassionate appointment.

¶105

This Court opines that rejecting the plea of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, on the ground that the adoption had not taken place in the petitioner's case i.e., five years prior to the death of the employee cannot be held to be reasonable ground, since admittedly even as per the averments made at para Nos.s & 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.2

\a

t2

\I

to 4 (referred to and extracted above) and also G.O.Ms.No.3OO, dated 09.12.2OO9 (referred to and extracted above) as special case, the benefit of compassionate appointment had been extended in respect of other similarly situated individuals upon unregistered adoption deed and also in respect of similarly situated individuals who did not satisfy the required criteria that the adoption has to take place legally at least five years prior to the date of demise of the deceased employee as per Board's Memo, dated 25.1O.L9994, duly relaxing the said two conditions.

¶110

Hence, this Court opines that the respondents need to reconsider the request of the petitioner for providing compassionate appointment, duly taking into consideration the fact that the said benefit had been extended for similarly situated persons like the petitioner herein, duly relaxing the mandatory criteria that adoption should have taken place legally five years prior to the death of the deceased employee and also considering the unregistered adoption deed, since the specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner will fulfill the requisite

¶111

r3

¶112

S, J

¶113

criteria if the petitioner,s unregistered adoption deed, dated 18.02.2014 is considered by the respondents, tn accordance to law.

¶114

The Writ Petit on s allowed, the order IMDU q ned Mem o .No.coM( HR D)/GM/IR.Lql &Adm/AS(Per&S er) / POH/ 15-H1 /2021 da o.o ,20 2D ssed bv the Chief General Mana qer(H RD ls set set-asid and the matter is remittedt th 2nd res ondent ereinto reconsl er the AD^plica ti on oft he etittoner seekino AD ntment u n comDasstona te qroun ds dulv kin ln co sid ration the fact as bo rne on record that the sardb enefit had been xte de tot e it I u sw os ad tion ad ot een ak c a rt r de h of the deceas ede mDl vee and also the fact asborne on reco rd that si milar ben efit had been nded tot he si mila ly tua d ers s h n da an re ist d d d a o n aw tn n wt rl ct es ofn atural usti bvDr vidi qa OD rtunitv of rso al h art o on e st ln th v o ect of c mDa ssto ate a DOt tme t and DA ss a f rt or e d nn h a nof

1.1

S. J

?

the Detition er see kinq aDpointment onc^omDassionate q rou nds and dulv commu nicate the deci ion to the oetitioner. However,th^{ere shallbe no orderastoc osts.}

¶119

Miscellaneous^petitions, if^{any, pending in this Writ} Petition, shall stand^closed.

t

$

I'o

SD/-S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO A ISTANT REGISTRAR

¶124

,TRUE COPY//