WP/6533/2023 of MOGILIKALUVA SRINU Vs THE STATE OF AP on 8 February 2026

ORDER:-

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “….to issue order or orders, direction or directions, Writ or Writs particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not considering the claim of the Petitioner for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant or in any other equivalent suitable post on the strength of the educational qualifications of the Petitioner under the scheme of Compassionate appointment to the dependants of Government employee who dined in harness and who are found missing and whereabouts are not known for more than seven years, on the alleged ground that the left over service of the missing employee (i.e. Petitioner's father) to retire from service is less than seven years from the date on which the FIR was lodged, despite the Condition No.3(b)(i) of GOMs.No.378, General Administration (Ser,A) Department, dated 24.08.1999 was struck down in WPNo.10145 of 2012, dated 18.02.2021, under the guise of Letter Roc.No.82/B/2021, dated 28.01.2021, issued by the 4th Respondent herein, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and is subversive of Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and Consequently hold that the Petitioner is entitled for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant or any other equivalent suitable post under the Scheme of Commissionate appointment to the dependants of Government employees who died in harness and who are found missing and whereabouts are not known for more than seven years in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WPNo.10145 of 2012, dated 18.02.2021 wherein Condition No.3(b)(i) of GOMs.No.378, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 24.08.1999 was struck down and also on the strength of principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in catena of cases, with all consequential and attendant benefits, by setting aside the Letter Roc.No.82/B/2021, dated 28.01.2021, issued by the 4th Respondent herein, forthwith…”

2. Heard Sri D. Linga Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the Respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the father of the Petitioner by name Mr. Mogili Kaluva Subbarayudu, while working as Office Subordinate in the office of Respondent No.5, disappeared from 04.10.2012. Accordingly, a case in Crime No. 466 of 2012 was registered on 06.11.2012 by the East Police Station, Tirupati under the head “Man Missing”. As per letter addressed by concerned Inspector of Police, dated 12.11.2016 shows that the missing man has not been traced out and finally the case was referred as “undetectable”. Accordingly, the Petitioner made an application dated 23.11.2019 to the Respondent No.5 requesting to consider the case of the Petitioner under compassionate appointment as per relevant G.O. In fact, the State has formulated a scheme for compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased government employees, who are found missing and whereabouts not known more than seven years vide G.O.Ms.No.378, General Administration (SER-A) Department, dated 24.08.1999, which reads as follows:- “ 3. Government after careful examination of the matter, hereby direct that compassionate appointments be provided to the dependents of the Government employees, who have disappeared and whose whereabouts are not known for more than 7 (seven) years in accordance with the existing instructions on the scheme of compassionate appointments to the dependents of deceased Government employees who die in harness, subject to the following conditions:

(a) A request for grant of the benefit of compassionate appointments can be considered only after a lapse of 7 (seven ) years from th date from which the Govrnment servant has been missing, provided that:

(i) An FIR (First Information Report) to this effect has been lodged with police;

(ii) The police report shall certify that the missing Government employee is not traceable; and

(iii) The competent authority feels that the case is genuine.

(b) This benefit shall not be applicable to the case of Government servant:-

(i) Who had less than 7 (seven) years to retire on the date from which the FIR is filed: and / or

(ii) Who is suspected to have committed fraud or suspected to have joined any terrorist/ extremist organization or suspected to have gone abroad.

(c) While considering the request for compassionate appointment the result of the police investigation shall also be taken into account:

(d) Applicants for compassionate appointment from the dependents of such missing Government employees shall be entertained within a period of one year from the date of completion of 7 (seven) years from the date of filing FIR with police.

(e) A decision on any such request for compassionate appointment shall be taken only at the level of the Secretary to Government of the respective administrative Department concerned and only after receipt of the approval from the concerned Secretary to Government, the respective appointing authorities shall issue necessary orders to appoint the eligible dependent of such missing Government employees as per the existing instructions on the scheme of compassionate appointments to the dependents of deceased Government employees in addition to the above conditions, if there is a vacancy readily available in the department. In case when there are no vacancies available in the department to appoint such eligible dependent of the missing Government employee, such cases have to be referred to nodal authorities for allotting such dependants to any other department in the District as ordered in G.O.Ms.No.427, Genl. Admn.(Ser.A) Dept., dated the 5th September, 1991 and G.O.Ms.No.215, Genl. Admn. (Ser.A) Dept., dated 8th April, 1993.

(f) A bond shall be obtained from the dependent of such missing Government employee, whose whereabouts are not known for mor than 7 (seven) years that in the event of appearance of such missing Government employee at a later date or proved that such missing Government employee is alive anywhere, the services of the person so appointed are liable for termination.

4. When the Respondents are not considered the case of the Petitioner, the Petitioner has made an application through Right to Information Act, 2005 and the same was replied by the Respondent No.5 on 28.01.2021 stating that as on the date of missing the father of the Petitioner has only two years of service, the Petitioner is not eligible to appoint under compassionate grounds, who had less than 7 years of service as per above said G.O. Aggrieved by the same, the instant Writ Petition came to be filed.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in identical situation, this Court passed an order dated 18.02.2021 in W.P.No.10145 of 2012, which reads as follows:-

“28. For the above mentioned reasons, in the considered opinion of this Court, the condition No.3(b)(i) of the G.O.Ms.No. 378, GA (Ser-A) Dept., dated 24.08.1999, in which it is provided that the missing Government servant shall have 7 years of service to retire on the date from which the FIR is filed is discriminatory, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and is liable to be struck down.

29. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions:

i) The condition No.3(b)(i) of G.O.Ms.No.378, GA (Ser-A), Department, dated 24.08.1999, is hereby struck down;

ii) The Memo No.JS(Per)/DS(E)/AS (V&R)-NT/PO-1/718/2004, dated 03.03.2009, is set aside;

iii) The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of G.O.Ms.No.378, GA (Ser-A) Department, dated 24.08.1999 in any suitable post within a period of Six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order: and

iv) There is no order as to costs”.

6. According to the above said orders, this Court has already set aside the condition No.3(b)(i), which describes requirement of seven years to retire from the service on the date of FIR. In the aforesaid circumstances, the condition No.3(b)(i) got struck down by this Court, the Respondents has to consider the case of the Petitioner without reference to condition No.3(b)(i) and pass order on the application made by the Petitioner.

7. In reply to the said conditions, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondents submits that in view of struck down the condition No.3(b)(i) in G.O.Ms.No.378, General Administration (SER-A) Department, dated 24.08.1999, whether an Appeal has been preferred or not is to be verified, but the Respondents have not rejected the case of the Petitioner. The proceedings which relied by the Petitioner dated 28.01.2021 issued by the Respondent No. 4 is only reply given to the Petitioner under application made through Right to Information Act, 2005, which is not a rejection order and the Authorities would consider the application and pass appropriate orders as per rules in vogue as on today.

8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel on both sides, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition, directing the Respondents to consider the application made by the Petitioner on 23.11.2019 as per guidelines issued, vide G.O.Ms.No. 378, dated 24.08.1999 without reference to the condition No.3 (b)(i) therein and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

__________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 09.02.2026 KK