WRIT PETITION 7067 of 2005 on 15 May 2004

1. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of IndiaLocal Heal Office,Local Heal Office,Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad.

2. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.3. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of IndiaRegional Office,Regional Office,Visakhapatnam.

...Respondents

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india praying that inthe circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied therewith, the High Courtmaybe pleased to Issue a Writ, order or directionmore particularly one in thenature of Writ of Certiorari callings for therecords from the office of the 3rdrespondent pertaining the order dated 15-5-2004 issued under ReferenceNo, (3-1)/PER & HRD/F 25/30 and to quash the same holding thatit[IS]iIllegal, arbitrary, unjust, malafide,without proper application of mindandagainst the principles of natural Justiceand consequentially to direct the Respondents to provide him a suitable job on compassionate groundsinithe Respondents Bank.

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2005(WPMP. NO: 9418 OF 2005)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,the High Court may bepleased pass an interim direction against the respondentsto provide him asuitable jobinthe Respondents' Bankonad-hocbasisto meetthepenurious state of our family and to save them from starvation, during thependency of the Writ Petition, in the interest of justice.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI, K SARVA BHOUMARAO

Counsel for the Respondents: SR! K B RAMANNADORA

The Court made the following orderr

K?'■

APHC010251732005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATI(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3332]

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

WRIT PETITION NO: 7067/2005

Between:

Sundara Durga Prasada Rao,

...PETITIONER

AND

The Chief Gen Manager SBl and 2 others

...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. K SARVA BHOUMA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. KB RAMANNA DORA

2. E MADAN MOHAN RAO

The Court made the following order:

Questioning the order dated 15.05.2004 passed by respondent[No.3]vide Ref. No.(3-1)/PER & HRD/F 25/30, the present Writ[Petition][ is][ filed.]

2. The case of the petitioner is that his father Sri S.Govinda[Rao,][ who was]working as Record Keeper in the office of respondent[No.3,][ expired][ while][ in]service due to heart attack on 24.03.2000 leaving behind[him,][ his][ mother][ and]sister besides the petitioner.The petitioner’s mother[made][ an][ application][ to]working as Record Keeper in the office of respondent[No.3,][ expired][ while][ in]service due to heart attack on 24.03.2000 leaving behind[him,][ his][ mother][ and]sister besides the petitioner.The petitioner’s mother[made][ an][ application][ to]

respondentNo.3toprovideanynatureofjobtothepetitioneroncompassionate grounds,for which thereis no response from respondentNo.3.It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner along with hismother went to all the respondents, who after a lapse of two years time, sent aletter dated02.09.2002informingthepetitionerthattheapplicationforappointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected on the ground thatthe financial condition of the family of the petitioner[cannot][ be][ termed]aspenurious by citing the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme[Court][ in][ Sri] UmeshKumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & others^ The petitioner’s[mother] madeanother application dated 29.08.2003 narrating the financial condition of thedeceased, but the respondents paid deaf ear, as such, the petitioner filed WritPetition No.4137 of 2004 and this Court vide order dated 16.03.2004 directedthe respondents to consider the case of the petitioner within two months fromthe date of receipt of a copy of the order as per rules,regulations andguidelines. The said order was served on the respondents on 16.03.2004, butthey did not make any further enquiry into the case, nor called for personalhearingof the petitioner, however served with an order dated15.05.2004rejecting the request of the petitioner on the ground that the financial conditionof their family cannot be termed as penurious. Questioning the same, thepresent Writ Petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri K.Sarvabhouma Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner andSri K.B.Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for respondents.Sri K.B.Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for respondents.

\

elaborationto what has been4.Learned counselfor the petitioner,instatedin theaffidavit contended that due to the sudden death of[deceased,]the deceased was the solethe family members have become helpless, asbreadwinner of his family. He further submitted that[in][ the][ impugned][ order,][ the]respondents did not discuss the financial positioninterms of the documentsproduced by the petitioner. The impugned order is highlyunsustainable andbe set aside and accordingly prayed to pass ordersinthe sameis liable tothat regard.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents[while][ reiterating]_ £i.Uthecontentsof the counter contendedthat during theiifetimeUiUlc;deceased, he performed the marriage of his daughter,[as][ such,][ she][ is][ not][ a]of the deceased. At the time of death of deceased,[the][ petitioner]dependentwas aged 20 years and he is capable of supporting himselfon his own.TheBank refused to appoint the petitioner on compassionate[grounds]afterconsidering the financial position of the family as[per][ the][ guidelines][ provided]under the scheme and in consonance with the judgment[rendered][ by][ the]Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. He further submitted[that][ the][ Widow][ of][ the]deceased has also opted for family pension at Ramchandrapuram[Branch][ and]from the branch apart from pension undershe has been drawing the sameMutual Welfare Scheme. The financialpositionof thepetitionerisnotsuch,thepetitionerisnotentitledforcompassionatepenurious,as appointment. The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissedin limini, as limini, as as the sameis devoid of merits andaccordingly prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

Conclusion

in limini, as limini, as as the same

6. Perused the record and consideredthe submissions made by learnedcounsel for the parties.the submissions made by learnedcounsel for the parties.

7. It is an admitted fact that the fatherof the petitioner died due to heartattack on 24.03.2000 while hewas working as a Record Keeper in the officeof respondent No.3.It is also an admitted fact that during the life of deceased,he has performed themarriage of his daughter, as such, the petitioner and hismother are the only legal heirs of the deceasedemployee.of the petitioner died due to heartattack on 24.03.2000 while hewas working as a Record Keeper in the officeof respondent No.3.It is also an admitted fact that during the life of deceased,he has performed themarriage of his daughter, as such, the petitioner and hismother are the only legal heirs of the deceasedemployee.

8. In the judgment of Sri Umesh Kumar(1®' cited supra), the Hon’bleSupreme Court held that;(1®' cited supra), the Hon’bleSupreme Court held that; "Thewholeobjectof grantingcomDassionatf^familysuaaen a crisis. post The much object less is a not post to give for a post member held by of such thedeceased^ What Is further, mere death of an employeeinlivelihood.TheGovernmentorthepublicauthoritvfZfy'lhhe^^^’ooooial condition of thehi f fdeceased, and it is only if it is satisfiedthatabte°toZj^i°fZ'°''the family will not benZlbeable to meet the cnsis that a jobP^o^'^od Is to a be scheeT oLred or to ruefs theprovide for the same. This Court further clarified in the saidwWc/appointment Is not a vested rightWhich can be exercised at any time after the death of atimefamilygovernment of to the get death servant over of the thrKscie That financial the object breadwinner. crisis which being itcompassionate to' faces enable at the theemployment cannot be claimed and offeredafter lapse of considerableamountoftimeandafterthecrisisisovercome. ”

Perusal of the above would makeit clear that the financial[condition][ of]the family of the deceased has to be examined by the[authority][ concerned][ and]if it is satisfied that the financial condition of the family will not be able to meetthe crisis, then only job to be offered to the eligible[member][ of][ the][ family][ as]per the rules.

9. Perusalof the impugnedorder wouldindicatethattheauthorityconcerned has examined the proposal of the petitioner[for][ compassionate]appointment and found that the condition of the family[could][ not][ be][ termed][ as]penurious,assuch,thesaidproposal was declinedbythecompetentauthority.concerned has examined the proposal of the petitioner[for][ compassionate]appointment and found that the condition of the family[could][ not][ be][ termed][ as]penurious,assuch,thesaidproposal was declinedbythecompetentauthority.

10. In Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Hakim Singh^,[the][ Hon’ble]Apex Court held that:

“This Court placed much emphasis on the need forimmediacyinthemannerinwhichclaimsforcompassionate appointment are made by the dependantsanddecidedbytheconcernedauthority.ThisCourtcautioned that it should not be forgotten that the object ofcompassionate appointment is to give succor to the[family]to tide over the sudden financial crisis that has befallen[the]dependants on account of the untimely demise of its[sole]earning member. Therefore, this Court held that it[would]not be justified in directing appointment for the claimantstherein on compassionate grounds, fourteen years after[the]death of the government employee. That such a directionwouldamounttotreatingaclaimfor compassionate appointment as thoughit were a matter of inheritancebased on a line of succession. ”

11. In the case of Canara Bank v. Ajith Kumar G.K^, the Hon’bleSupreme Court held that;

“An application for compassionate appointment has to bemade immediately upon death/incapacitation and in any[case]within a reasonable period thereof or else a presumption[could]be drawnthatthefamily of thedeceased/incapacitatedemployee is not in immediate need of financial assistance.Such appointment not being a vested right, the right to applycannot be exercised at sin\/_y fime^-;in,ifuture^i ^ onHiitifh\r>,Offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. ”

12. In Central Coalfields Limited v. Parden oraon'*, the Hon’bleSupreme Court held that; It M/as further asseverated in the said judgment thatcompassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse ofreasonable period as the consideration of such employment[is]not a vested right which can be exercised at any time[in][ the]future.

13. Perusal of the dictum would makeit clear that the consideration ofcompassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised atcompassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at ^ AIR online 2025 Supreme Court 184

(2021) 16 Supreme Court Cases 384

any time in future and it cannot be offered whatever[the][ lapse][ of][ time][ and][ after]the crisis is over.

14. Perusal of the record would indicate that the father of the petitionerdied in the year 2000, the application for compassionate[appointment][ was]rejected by the authorities in the year 2004 and the[petitioner][ filed][ the][ present]Writ Petition in the year 2005. Consideration of the petitioner’s appointment atthis length of time /.e., after lapse of 25 years from[the][ death]of his fatherwould not arise.

15. In view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court[referred]supra with regard to compassionate appointment and[taking][ into][ consideration]the facts and circumstances of the case, this Courtis of the view that the:fimpugned' order warrants no interference and the petitioner[is][ not][ entitled][ for]compassionate appointment.supra with regard to compassionate appointment and[taking][ into][ consideration]the facts and circumstances of the case, this Courtis of the view that the:fimpugned' order warrants no interference and the petitioner[is][ not][ entitled][ for]compassionate appointment.

16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There[shall][ be no][ order]as to costs.as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any[in][ the][ Writ][ Petition,]shall stand closed.

Sd/- G HELA NAIDUASSISTANT REGISTRARSECTION OFFICERi //TRUE COPY//

To

1. One CC to Sri K Sarva Bhouma Rao Advocate [OPUC]

2. One CC to Sri K B Ramanna Dora Advocate [OPUC]

3. Three CD Copies

GSC (gsg)

HIGH COURT

DATE0:08/04/2025

ORDERWP.No.7067 of 2005

DISMISSING THE WPWITHOUT COSTS

llliS25 SEP 2025^.Current iieciion