Smt Bandi Neeraja v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

2

had discharged his duties as constable for a period of 19 years. Due to his ill health, this case was referred to the Medical Board by the Competent Authority i.e Respondent No.3 vide letter dated 25.01.2018 to the Government General Hospital, Guntur. Pursuant to the said reference made by the respondent No.3, the Regional Medical Board, Government General Hospital, Guntur issued a report dated 21.11.2017 stating that husband of the 1^stpetitioner is not fit to perform/execute duties.

4. In view of the said proceedings, Chairman of the District Level Committee addressed a letter to the Respondent No.3 vide proceedings dated 22.10.2020, it is stated that the husband of the 1^stpetitioner was declared as Medically Invalidated for discharging the duties, as far as entitlement of the compassionate appointment to the 1^stpetitioner is concerned.

5. The husband of the petitioner not left over the service of five (5) years for considering the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, thereafter, the respondent No.1 issued proceedings dated 08.02.2021 stating that directing the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be considered on the ground that the required period of five years left over service is to be reckoned from the date of issue of orders of retirement on Medical invalidation in the

3

present case. Husband of the petitioner is having more than five (5) years of service and also the District Level Committee shall strictly consider all the guidelines for considering the appointment under compassionate ground of medical invalidation. Accordingly, the case of the petitioners was rejected.

6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader would submit that the request of the 1^stpetitioner in this writ petition i.e. Smt.B.Neeraja, W/o.B.Prem Kumar, Ex CT-2465 of APSPF, was referred to the Government, Home Department vide letter Rc.No.A1/APSPF/Genl/2020, dated 10.11.2020. However, the Government vide Memo No.1128094/SER.III/A2/2020,

dated:08.02.2021 rejected the representation of the 1^stpetitioner Smt.Neeraja stating that the due procedure laid down in the G.O.Ms.661, GA (Ser.G) Dept, dated 23.10.2008 was not followed. The petitioner has contended in her writ petition that, she was denied to provide employment on "compassionate grounds" by indiscriminately considering that her husband is having service of more than (05) years at the time of his medical invalidation, even though her husband has more than (14) years of service, which is far away from truth. The appointments on compassionate ground under this scheme shall be in the same unit of appointment. While making these appointments the

4

provisions contained in the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) order, 1975 (Presidential Order on SPF) shall be application. the benefit of compassionate appointment on medical grounds, shall have left over service of 5 years before attaining the age of superannuation irrespective of the age of superannuation prescribed for the posts and services. The required period of 5 years of left over service is to be reckoned from the date of issue of orders of retirement on medical invalidation.

7. The learned Government Pleader further contended that in view of the G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23.10.2008, the husband of the petitioner left over 14 years of service after retirement of medical invalidation to the age of superannuation, in view of that, the case of the petitioner was not considered since the service is more than five (5) years. So, the plea of the petitioner cannot be considered in view of G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23.10.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.182, dated

22.05.2014.

8. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the rejection order dated 08.02.2021 issued by the respondent No.1 wherein it is stated that the petitioner does not come under the purview of G.O.Ms.661 is left over service after declaration of Medical

5

Invalidation more than five (5) years and District Level Committee do not strictly consider the guidelines and conditions stipulated for implementation of the said scheme, is only without application of mind against the object of the scheme of the compassionate appointment under medical invalidation. He further submits that the District Level Committee, which is Competent Authority for consideration of the case of the petitioner, rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that the husband of the petitioner is having more than five years of left over service after declaration of medical invalidation till the date of age of superannuation for consideration of the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is also without application of mind, since the left over service of the husband of the petitioner is more than five years. He further submits that the proceedings of the District Level Committee dated 15.02.2021 and the proceedings of the respondent No.1 dated 08.02.2021 is contrary to each other. Both have to be set aside.

9. Having regard to the contentions submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Government Pleader for respondents, the contention of the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner declared as medically invalidated for discharging his duties was done in proper procedure as contemplated under the rules

6

invoked. For the reasons, the Medical Board specifically declared vide its proceedings dated 21.11.2017 that the husband of the petitioner is not fit for to discharge the duties and other contentions of the petitioners that after declaration of the Medical Board about the medical invalidation of the husband of the petitioner, the District Level Committee considered affirmed the report of the Medical Board, but rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground the husband of the petitioner is not left over five (5) years of service is also not tenable. For the reason the husband of the petitioner retired on medical invalidation with left over service of fourteen (14) years. The other contention of the petitioner is that the 1^strespondent rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground the remaining period of the husband of the petitioner is more than five years as per G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23.10.2008 the service must be five years only. Therefore, the case of the petitioner for appointment under compassionate ground cannot be considered is also not sustainable. For the reason, the minimum requirement of period to be left over in respect of medical invalidated person should be five (5) years. There is no whisper about maximum period in G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23.10.2008 for providing compassionate appointment who is having more than five (5) years of service after retirement on medical invalidation.

7

10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 08.02.2021 and 08.02.2021 and directing the 1^strespondent herein to take appropriate steps for considering the case of the petitioner on compassionate appointment within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

11. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

______________________________________

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

09.11.2022

KGR

8

159

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.11745 of 2021

Dated: 09.11.2022

KGR