Claim for Employment on Compassionate Grounds, to be made within a Specified Time

G. Mallikharjuna Rao vs.District and Sessions Judge, Nellore and another

Filed under: Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995:
Rule 22 of the Andra Pradesh State of Subordinate Service Rules
Article 14 of the Constitution of India
Appellants: G. Mallikharjuna Rao
Respondent: District and Sessions Judge, Nellore and another
Citation: 2001 (4) ALD 18
Court: In the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Haryana
Judges: S.R. Nayak and S. Ananda Reddy

Facts

G. Mallikharjuna Rao was the son of Venkatata Subbaiah who was in the ‘Ministerial service of the judiciary’. Venkata Subbaiah died on 15-5-1984 in harness. At the time of death of the father, Mallikharjuna was minor and admittedly, attained majority on 12-6-1992.

He sought appointment on compassionate grounds through an application on 24-8-1992. His claim was rejected by the District & Sessions Judge. He sought for a declaration that the action of the District & Sessions Judge in denying reservation to him as he was a physically handicapped person in the terms of Rule 22(ii) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Mallikharjuna prayed for a consequential direction to consider and appoint him in any suitable post in the A.P. Judicial Ministerial Services such as Typist, Junior Assistant, Copyist, Record Assistant etc.

Observation of the Court

The Court held that under the Rules governing the appointment on compassionate grounds, the dependents of the deceased employee who are minor at the time of death of the employee could seek appointment on compassionate ground only if they dependents attained majority within a period of two years from the date of the death. In the instant case, Mallikharjuna attain majority after a long time of more than eight years. There was no controversy on these facts.

It was thus held that since Mallikharjuna did not acquire a right to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds under the exiting Rules, non-consideration of his case could not be faulted.

Although he had not taken any ground on the basis of the provisions of the persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, to claim reservation to the extent of 3%, the Court stated that, under Section 33 of the Act, every appropriate Government was obliged to provide certain percentage of vacancies not less than 3% for class of persons with disability.

But he was not entitled to the relief because in the counter-affidavit filed by the District & Sessions Judge it was pointed out that the application filed by Mallikharjuna was found to be defective and the same was rejected at the time of the scrutiny of the application by the District Selection Committee.

It was therefore held that in view of the matter, it was not possible to issue any direction to consider his application for the post. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed

Cases Referred:

  • State of H.P. vs. Jafli Devi, 1997 (5) SCC 301