(Prayer: 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not reconsidering the case of the petitioner for appointment under the Scheme of Medically Invalidation in pursuance to the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4210 of 2003 and Civil Appeal No.4993 of 2008 dated 12.08.2008 as highly illegal, arbitrary, improper, unjust, contrary to Service Rules and in violation of principles of natural Justice guaranteed under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment under the Scheme of Medically Invalidation of his father in any suitable post and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

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 reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment under the Scheme of Medically Invalidation in any suitable post by disposing of the representation dated 07.10.2018 pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2020

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 please to grant urgent permission to file W.P.No. of 2020 and to pass)

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.

1. Heard Sri Narra Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The father of the petitioner was working as a Process Server in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Repalle and was due to retire, from service, w.e.f. 31.08.2006, on attaining the age of superannuation. He had sought retirement on medical invalidation, by way of an application, dated 03.11.1999 as he was suffering from „Lumer Canal Stenosis with the Seatica (Left) with Hypertension‟. The father of the petitioner while seeking retirement, on medical invalidation, had also sought compassionate appointment of the petitioner, who was his son, under the scheme of compassionate appointment contained in G.O.Ms.No.309, dated 04.07.1985 and G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 09.06.1988.

3. The request of the father of the petitioner was accepted, by the Principal District Judge, Guntur, on the basis of the medical invalidation certificate, dated 15.03.2000, which was issued by the Medical Board, after physically examination of the father of the petitioner. The Principal District Judge after accepting the said invalidation certificate had sent proposals to the Hon‟ble High Court, on 14.07.2000, for compassionate appointment of the petitioner. However, the father of the petitioner was again referred to a Medical Board, on 03.04.2001, which again issued a medical invalidation on 19.05.2001. After receipt of this certificate, the Principal District Judge had again forwarded proposals for appointment of the petitioner, to the High Court in June, 2001.

4. A Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, by a Judgment, dated 12.01.2001, in W.P.No.13489 of 2001, had held that the entire scheme of compassionate appointment was itself invalid and had set aside the scheme. Pursuant to this decision, the father of the petitioner was informed, by the Principal District Judge, Guntur, by a notice dated 14.12.2001, that the application of the petitioner was being rejected in view of the judgment of the full bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Thereafter, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, by its judgment, dated 12.08.2008, had set aside the judgment of the full bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, and held that the scheme for compassionate appointment of dependants of government servants under on medical invalidation is legally valid and left it open to the government to revive the scheme. The Government had, thereupon, revived the scheme.

5. The petitioner, moved the respondents, by a representation, on 07.10.2018, for considering his application for appointment, on compassionate grounds. The petitioner then approached this Court, by way of the present Writ Petition, in September, 2020 for being appointed, under the scheme of medical invalidation, revived pursuant to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, dated 12.08.2008.

6. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was entitled to be appointed, on compassionate grounds, on account of medical invalidation of his father in view of the scheme of appointment framed under the above government orders. He would submit that the initial rejection of his case, on the ground of invalidation of the said scheme, has to be set aside on account of the subsequent judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. The petitioner would also contend that the petitioner and his entire family, after the retirement of his father had been living in starvation and that non consideration of the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment would result in grave loss and hardship to the petitioner and his family.

7. The respondents had filed a counter affidavit in which it was contended that the petitioner was not entitled for compassionate appointment inview of the delay in approaching the Court. It was the contention of the respondent that the order of rejection passed on 14.12.2001 came to bechallenged only in the year 2020, after 19 years of rejection and the same is clearly barred by laches. The respondents would also contend that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to tide over the family of the employee, from the sudden change of circumstances, wherein the sole bread winner of the family is not available in any manner and the family is bereft of any source of income. The contention of the respondent is that such a situation would cease to exist after period of 19 years and consequently, the petitioner would not be entitled for any such appointment. The petitioner filed a memo on 17.09.2024 and a second memo on 06.02.2025. In the memo of 17.09.2024, the petitioner produced a representation that is said to have been sent on 27.08.2014, seeking composite appointment. In the memo filed on 03.12.2024, the petitioner produced a representation said to be dated 04.11.2008, given by the father of the petitioner for compassionate appointment of the petitioner.

8. During the course of hearing, this Court, in order to understand the financial situation of the petitioner had sought an additional affidavit to be filed by the petitioner setting out the details of his family and the present situation. In pursuance of this direction, the petitioner has filed an affidavit in which it is stated that the petitioner had two sons. The first son is said to be pursuing his Engineering in a reputed private engineering college, situated in Bapatla. The second son is said to be pursuing his studies in IIIT, Kadapa and the fee expenditure relating to the second son is covered to some extent under the Vidya Deevena Scheme of the State Government and that the remaining fees is being arranged by the petitioner. The petitioner states, in the additional affidavit, that he is eking out his livelihood by undertaking ironing works and that various loans had to be taken to defray the daily living expenditure. The petitioner, in the course of his affidavit, states that he had taken a gold loan of Rs.2,40,000/- in the year 2025 and another gold loan of Rs.6,30,000/-, in the year 2026, from Bank of India, Repalle Branch, for defraying the educational expenditure of his sons.

9. Sri Narra Srinivasa Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the additional affidavit reveals the indigent circumstances of the petitioner and that the petitioner is in need of compassionate appointment. The learned counsel would also contend that the application for compassionate appointment made in the year 1999, came to be negatived, on account of the judgment of the full bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which came to be set aside subsequently, by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. He would contend that the petitioner cannot be denied compassionate appointment on account of the delay caused by the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The learned counsel would also contend that the petitioner had always been pursuing his application for compassionate appointment, as can be seen from the representations given by the father of the petitioner in 2008 and the subsequent representation given by the petitioner in 2014 and 2018.

10. Sri N. Ashwini Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, would rely upon the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Surjeet Singh Sahni vs. State of U.P and Ors.,( (2002) 15 SCC 536 para 8) Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana((1994) 4 SCC 138 para 6)., State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir((2006) 5 SCC 766 para 11)., Eastern Coalfields Limited vs. Anil Badyakar and Ors.,( (2009) 13 SCC 112 para 20)& State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari.,( 2023 SCC Online SC 219 para 35) to contend that the scheme of compassionate appointment, is only to get over the sudden shock of the death of a person in hardness, which would deprive the family of its sole source of income or the compulsory retirement of a person in harness on account of medical invalidation which would also result in loss of the sole source of income from a family. He would submit that in the present case, the father of the petitioner had retired from service in the year 2003, on account of medical invalidation, and the petitioner was now earning money by undertaking ironing of cloths and cannot claim to be in such a situation has to be eligible for compassionate appointment.

11. The relevant parts of the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, have been extracted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in the form of a memo. It would be useful to set out the said extracts which are as follows:

                  The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of U.P. and Ors., and the relevant paragraph No.8 is extracted hereunder:-

                  “8. As observed by this Court in a catena of decisions, mere representation does not extend the period of limitation and the aggrieved person has to approach the Court expeditiously and within a reasonable time. If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and laches, the High Court should dismiss it at the threshold and ought not to dispose of the writ petition by relegating the writ petitioner to file a representation and/or directing the authority to decide the representation, once it is found that the original writ petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. Such order shall not give an opportunity to the petitioner to thereafter contend that rejection of the representation subsequently has given a fresh cause of action.”

                  The Hon'ble Apex Court in the landmark case on the principles of compassionate appointment in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and the relevant paragraph No.6 is extracted hereunder:-

                  “6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.”

                  The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of J&K &ors v. Sajad Ahmed Mir and the relevant paragraph No.11 is extracted hereunder:-

                  “11. We may also observe that when the Division Bench of the High Court was considering the case of the applicant holding that he had sought "compassion", the Bench ought to have considered the larger issue as well and it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in the Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive. merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed from except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of the sole breadwinner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say "goodbye" to the normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.”

                  The Hon'ble Apex Court again in the case of Eastern Coalfields Limited v. Anil Badyakar&ors has held and reiterated the general principle that the appointment under compassionate grounds is not a vested right that can be exercised at any time in future.

                  The Hon‟ble Apex Court recently in the case of State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari reported and the relevant paragraph No.35 is extracted here under:-

                  “35. Considering the second question referred to above, in the first instance, regarding whether applications for compassionate appointment could be considered after a delay of several years, we are of the view that, in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the government employee. In such circumstances, Courts or other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some othersource. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, as noted by this Court in Hakim Singh would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee.”

12. A perusal of these judgments would make it clear that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has been holding that a person cannot approach the court, for relief, after a long period of time and the same would have to rejected, on the ground of laches. Further, the question of granting compassionate appointment, after a long period had elapsed since the employee had passed away or retired would not arise as the basic premise of such requirement, does not remain any manner.

13. This Court, keeping in view the fact that the present Writ Petition has been filed 19 years after the rejection of the case of the petitioner, is of the view that the premise, on which the petitioner would be entitled for compassionate appointment, does not remain any manner. The fact that the petitioner has been able to raise loans on the basis of the gold available in the family, and the fact that the children of the petitioner are presently pursuing engineering, would further detract from the claim of the petitioner, that he is unable to make ends meet.

14. In the circumstances, the petitioner would not be entitled to be appointed on a compassionate basis and the present Writ Petition is barred by laches.

15. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

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

There shall be no order as to costs.