IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
*****
WRIT PETITION Nos. 2288 and 35834 of 2022
WP No.2288 of 2022
Between:
Thota Jaswanth
…Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana rep. By its Principal Secretary, Power and Energy
Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad – 500 004 (TS) and four others
…Respondents
WP No.35834 of 2022
Between:
[Link] Reddy
…Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana rep. By its Principal Secretary, Energy, Power and
Environment, T.S. Secretariat, Hyderabad and three others
…Respondents
COMMON ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 31.03.2023
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE [Link]
1. Whether Reporters of Local : Yes/No
newspapers may be allowed to see
the Judgment ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may : Yes/No
be marked to Law Reports/Journals
3. Whether Their Lordship/Ladyship : Yes/No
wish to see the fair copy of judgment
_____________________
JUSTICE [Link]
2
SK,J
[Link].2288 of 2022 &
WP No.35384 of 2022
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE [Link]
+WRIT PETITION NOs.2288 of 2022
%Dated 31.03.2023
# Thota Jaswanth
…Petitioner
AND
$ 1. The State of Telangana represented by its Principal Secretary, Power,
Energy Department, [Link], Hyderabad and four others
…Respondents
+WRIT PETITION NOs.35384 of 2022
# [Link] Reddy
…Petitioner
AND
$ 1. The State of Telangana represented by its Principal Secretary, Energy,
Power and Environment Department, [Link], Hyderabad and four
others
! Counsel for Petitioner in WP No.2288 of 2022 : Sri [Link]
! Counsel for Petitioner in WP No.35834 of 2022: Sri [Link] Shankar
^ Counsel for Respondent No.1 both petitions : Govt. Pleader for
Services-IV
^ Counsel for Respondent No.2 to 4 : Sri [Link] Sagar
in WP No.2288 of 2022 Learned Senior Counsel
^ Counsel for Respondent No.2 to 4 : Ms.V,Uma Devi
in WP No.35384 of 2022
< GIST :
> HEAD NOTE :
1. 2013 (3) ALT 153
2. (2005) 10 SCC 289
3. (2019) 3 SCC 653
4. 2021 SCC ONLINE AP 3109
5. 2015 (7) SCC 412
6. 2019 (3) SCC 653
3
SK,J
[Link].2288 of 2022 &
WP No.35384 of 2022
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE [Link]
WRIT PETITION Nos.2288 & 35834 of 2022
COMMON ORDER:
1. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions
is one and the same, they were heard together and
being disposed of by way of this common order.
2. Heard Sri [Link], Learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner in [Link].2288 of 2022
and Sri [Link] Shankar, Learned Counsel appearing
for the petitioner in [Link].35834 of 2022, and
learned Government Pleader for Services-IV appearing
for respondent No.1, and Sri [Link] Sagar, learned
Senior Counsel for respondents 2 to 4 in [Link].2288
of 2023; [Link] Devi, Learned Counsel appearing
for the respondents 2 to 4 in [Link].35384 of 2022.
4
SK,J
[Link].2288 of 2022 &
WP No.35384 of 2022
The case of the petitioner in [Link].2288 of 2022
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that father of the petitioner viz., Thota
Venkateswar Rao died on 10.09.2019 while he was in
service as Dozer Operator in KTPS O&M, leaving
behind the petitioner, his brother and mother as his
legal heirs, who are the dependants of on the deceased.
After death of his father the petitioner made a
representation to the respondents authorities for
providing employment, on compassionate grounds,
but the same was rejected on 27.03.2021 through the
impugned letter on the ground that the mother of the
petitioner viz., Thota Laxmi is receiving family pension
of Rs.41,823/- and the grandmother of the petitioner
also receiving pension of Rs.30,000/- per month, and
hence the dependant family members of the deceased
employee are not in indigent condition as per Clause 3
5
SK,J
[Link].2288 of 2022 &
WP No.35384 of 2022
(i) under [Link].119 dated 10.02.1982, which
stipulates that the dependants of the deceased
employee, who dies in harness leaving behind his
family in indigent circumstances only, are entitled for
employment under compassionate grounds which is
against very scheme of formulated for providing
compassionate appointment to the dependants of the
deceased employee.
The case of the petitioner in [Link].35834 of 2022
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that father of the petitioner viz., [Link]
Reddy died on 20.04.2020 while he was in service as
Foreman Grade-IV in Coal Plant Operation, Office of
Superintendent Engineer /O&M/RTS-B Ramagundam,
leaving behind the petitioner, his mother and two
sisters as his legal heirs, who are the dependants of on
the deceased. After death of his father ,the petitioner
6
SK,J
[Link].2288 of 2022 &
WP No.35384 of 2022
made a representation to the respondent No.3 on
02.10.2020 through proper channel, seeking
appointment on compassionate grounds, who in turn
forwarded the same to the respondent No.4.
Subsequently, the petitioner submitted the application
for job under the scheme of employment of the
dependant, duly enclosing the relevant documents,
such as No-objection certificate from the family
Members, as sought for by the respondent No.4.
While it being so, the petitioner received the impugned
letter rejecting the application of the petitioner stating
that under Clause 3 (i) under [Link].119 dated
10.02.1982 the dependants of the deceased employee,
who dies in harness leaving behind his family in
indigent circumstances only entitled for employment
under compassionate ground and since the mother of
the petitioner is receiving family pension and the
7
SK,J
[Link].2288 of 2022 &
WP No.35384 of 2022
petitioner is not entitled for employment under
compassionate grounds, which is arbitrary, irregular
and against very scheme formulated for providing
compassionate appointment to the dependants of the
deceased employee.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners in both
the petitions further submits that mere sanction of
family pension to the wife of the deceased employee
cannot come in the way of giving/providing
employment under the compassionate grounds and the
Hon’ble Apex Court time and again reiterated the said
principle. The rejection of the applications of the
petitioners for appointment on compassionate grounds
is nothing but circumventing the rules and also
frustrating the scheme of compassionate appointment
which was formulated to mitigate the loss or hardship
8
SK,J
[Link].2288 of 2022 &
WP No.35384 of 2022
caused to the deceased family and requested to allow
both the writ petitions.
6. The Learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioners, in support of their contention, relied on the
following judgments:
1. Commissioner of Police, and others Vs. [Link] 1
3. Govind Prakash Verma vs. LIC of India and others 2
3. State of Himachal Pradesh and another Vs. Shashi Kumar 3
4. Andhra Bank (now Union Bank of India Vs. [Link] 4
5. Canara Bank Vs [Link] Kumar5
7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondents submits that the application of the
petitioner in WP No.2288 of 2022 for providing
compassionate appointment was forwarded to the
1. 2013 (3) ALT 153
2. (2005) 10 SCC 289
3. (2019) 3 SCC 653
4. 2021 SCC ONLINE AP 3109
5. 2015 (7) SCC 412
9
SK,J
[Link].2288 of 2022 &
WP No.35384 of 2022
Vigilance Wing of TSGENCO and after conducting
enquiry submitted its report stating that the
grandmother of the petitioner in [Link].2288 of 2022
is receiving a family pension of Rs.30,000/- per month,
and mother of the petitioner is receiving family
pension of Rs.41,823/- consequent on death of the
father of the petitioner and therefore the petitioner in
[Link].2288 of 2022 is not entitled for compassionate
appointment in terms of [Link].119 dated
10.02.1982.
8. The learned Counsel appearing for the
respondents submits that the petitioner in
[Link].35384 of 2022 is not entitled for appointment
on compassionate grounds as the wife of the deceased-
employee is receiving family pension and the
respondent No.4 passed the impugned order basing on
10
SK,J
[Link].2288 of 2022 &
WP No.35384 of 2022
the [Link].119, dated 10.02.1982 and requested to
dismiss the writ petition.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents in
support of their contention relied on the following
judgment:
6. State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Shashi Kumar6
10. After hearing both sides this Court is of the
considered view that in both the cases the
respondents-Corporation rejected cases of the
petitioners herein for providing appointments on
compassionate grounds, on the ground that in one
case spouse and mother of the deceased-employee
receiving family pension and in another case the
spouse of the deceased-employee is receiving family
pension. The respondents rejected the claim of the
6. 2019 (3) SCC 653
11
SK,J
[Link].2288 of 2022 &
WP No.35384 of 2022
petitioners in terms Clause 3 (i) of [Link].119
dated 10.02.1982, as the petitioners are not in
indigent condition.
Clause 3 (i) of [Link].119 dated 10.02.1982
reads as follows:
A child i.e. a son, a daughter or spouse of a deceased
Board-Employee who dies in harness leaving his family in
indigent circumstances while in service be appointed as
LDC or equivalent post, Attender or Record Assistant
without the media of employment exchange, subject to the
condition that there being no other earning member in the
family”
11. In the above said clause there is no mention
about receiving of family pension is a bar for providing
appointment on compassionate grounds to the
dependants of the deceased-employee. Moreover,
Clause-2 of [Link].119 dated 10.02.1982, reads
as follows:
12
SK,J
[Link].2288 of 2022 &
WP No.35384 of 2022
“ The scheme of providing employment to
dependants of deceased Board employee while in
service was reconsidered by the A.P.E.E. Board
and it was decided that that instead of following a
policy different from State Government the orders
of the State Government in the matter shall be
followed in Toto with the following provisions ,
followed by the Government.
i) No relaxation in Educational qualifications or
age need to given in such cases
ii) The claim with eligibility for employment
should be within One year from the date of
death.
12. The [Link].687, General Administration
Department dated 03.10.1977 was issued by the then
Government of Andhra Pradesh, formulating the Rules
for providing appointment on compassionate grounds,
which was adopted by the Government of Telangana,
and in subsequent amendments made from time to
time to the said G.O, there is no provision to take into
13
SK,J
[Link].2288 of 2022 &
WP No.35384 of 2022
account of the family pension while providing
employment to the dependants of the deceased
employee who died in harness.
13. The Division of this Court in Commissioner of
Police and others Vs. [Link] (supra 1), at para
No.9, held that:
“……..Yet another defence is taken by the learned counsel that
as the wife of the deceased is getting family pension, the
applicant is not entitled for compassionate appointment. But the
same cannot be accepted. Merely because family pension is be
accepted. Merely because family pension is being paid to the
wife of the deceased, the same is not a ground to deprive the
benefit of compassionate appointment under this scheme notified
by the Government for the children of the deceased who died in
harness”.
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Govind Praksh
Verma Vs. LIC of India and others (Supra 2), at par
No.6, held that:
“ In our view, it was wholly irrelevant for the department
authorities and the learned Single Judge to take into
14
SK,J
[Link].2288 of 2022 &
WP No.35384 of 2022
consideration the amount which was being paid as family
pension to the widow of the deceased (which amount,
according to the appellant, has now been reduced to half)
and other amounts paid on account of terminal benefits
under the Rules. The scheme of compassionate
appointment is over and above whatever is admissible to
the legal representatives of the deceased employee as
benefits of service which one gets on the death of the
employee. Therefore, compassionate appointment cannot
be refused on the ground that any member of the family
received the amounts admissible under the Rules”
15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Canara Bank and
another Vs. [Link] Kumar (supra 5), at para
Nos.19 to 22, held that:
“19. Insofar as the contention of the appellant-bank that
since the respondent’s family is getting family pension and
also obtained the terminal benefits, in our view, is of no
consequence in considering the application for
compassionate appointment. Clause 3.2 of 1993 Scheme says
that in case the dependant of deceased employee to be
offered appointment is a minor, the bank may keep the offer
of appointment open till the minor attains the age of
15
SK,J
[Link].2288 of 2022 &
WP No.35384 of 2022
majority. This would indicate that granting of terminal
benefits is of no consequence because even if terminal
benefit is given, if the applicant is a minor, the bank would
keep the appointment open till the minor attains the
majority.
20. In Balbir Kaur & Anr. vs. Steel Authority of India
Ltd. & Ors., (2000) 6 SCC 493, while dealing with the
application made by the widow for employment on
compassionate ground applicable to the Steel Authority of
India, contention raised was that since she is entitled to get
the benefit under Family Benefit Scheme assuring monthly
payment to the family of the deceased employee, the request
for compassionate appointment cannot be acceded to.
Rejecting that contention in paragraph (13), this Court held
as under:-
“13. ….But in our view this Family Benefit Scheme
cannot in any way be equated with the benefit of
compassionate appointments. The sudden jerk in the
family by reason of the death of the breadearner can
only be absorbed by some lump-sum amount being
made available to the family — this is rather
unfortunate but this is a reality. The feeling of security
16
SK,J
[Link].2288 of 2022 &
WP No.35384 of 2022
drops to zero on the death of the breadearner and
insecurity thereafter reigns and it is at that juncture if
some lump-sum amount is made available with a
compassionate appointment, the grief-stricken family
may find some solace to the mental agony and manage
its affairs in the normal course of events. It is not that
monetary benefit would be the replacement of the
breadearner, but that would undoubtedly bring some
solace to the situation.”
21. Referring to Steel Authority of India Ltd.’s case, High
Court has rightly held that the grant of family pension or
payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as a
substitute for providing employment assistance. The High
Court also observed that it is not the case of the bank that
the respondents’ family is having any other income to negate
their claim for appointment on compassionate ground.
22. Considering the scope of the Scheme ‘Dying in Harness
Scheme 1993’ then in force and the facts and circumstances
of the case, the High Court rightly directed the appellant-
bank to reconsider the claim of the respondent for
compassionate appointment in accordance with law and as
17
SK,J
[Link].2288 of 2022 &
WP No.35384 of 2022
per the Scheme (1993) then in existence. We do not find any
reason warranting interference”
16, The judgment relied on by the learned Senior
Counsel for the respondents in State of Himachal
Pradesh and another Vs. Sashi Kumar (supra 6)
does not apply to the instant case as the respondent
therein questioned the policy of the Government of
Hmachal Pradesh in fixing the income slab for
providing compassionate appointment. Para No.9 of
the said judgment reads as follows:
“ Para No.10 of the policy stipulates that the government has
introduced a number of welfare measures, which have made a
significant difference to the financial position of families of
government servants who die in harness. Hence, the policy stipulates
that benefits received by the family on account of those
welfare measures “may be kept in view” while considering cases of
employment assistance on compassionate grounds. The policy
proceeds to enumerate the welfare measures which, on the date of its
formulation, were available to families of deceased employees.
18
SK,J
[Link].2288 of 2022 &
WP No.35384 of 2022
Paragraph 10(c) of the Policy, which has a bearing in this case, is in
the following terms:
“(c) The provision of employment assistance was introduced in 1958
and since then a number of welfare measures have been introduced by
the Govt. which made significant difference in the financial position of
the families of the Govt. servants dying in harness. The benefit
received by the family on account of these measures may be kept in
view while considering cases of employment assistance on
compassionate grounds. Such measures, in brief, which are at present
available to the families of the deceased employees are as under:
xxxx xxxxx
17. In the State of Himachal Pradesh, the said
Scheme contemplates that payments which have been
received on account of welfare measures provided by
the State including family pension are to be taken into
account and fixed the income limits for providing
compassionate appointment. But in the State of
Telangana no such provision was made in the
compassionate appointments scheme issued in
[Link].687, General Administration Department,
19
SK,J
[Link].2288 of 2022 &
WP No.35384 of 2022
date 03.10.1977 and the same was also not mentioned
in the [Link].119, dated 10.02.1982.
18. In view of the same, the impugned Orders passed
by the respondents viz., [Link]/(O&M)/KTPSVII
Stage/DS /ADM/PO/ADM/AM(HR)/B.4/[Link].286/21
dated 27.03.2021 passed by the respondent No.3 in
[Link].2288 of 2022; and [Link]/(O&M)/RTS DE
(AT&P)/DM/HR/JPO/[Link]/[Link].571/21 dated
28.06.2021 passed by the respondent No.4 in
[Link].35834 of 2022 are liable to be set aside and
accordingly set aside.
19. With the above findings, both the writ petitions
are allowed and the respondents are directed to
reconsider the cases of the petitioners for providing
appointments on compassionate grounds without
taking into account of the family pension being
20
SK,J
[Link].2288 of 2022 &
WP No.35384 of 2022
received by the spouse or mother of the deceased-
employees, within twelve (12) weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as
to costs.
20. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall
stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________
JUSTICE [Link],
Date:31.03.2023
Note:
LR copy to be marked
b/o
