Libertatem Magazine

Rejection of the Claims of the Petitioner Are Unjust, Illegal and Violative of Article 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India: The Andhra Pradesh H.C. 

Contents of this Page


  1. A.P. Sarma………petitioner

A.P. GENCO ltd………. respondent 

A single-judge bench consisting of honorable justice battu Devananda gave orders on the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The petition was filed to issue any appropriate writ or writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in rejecting the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of articles 14, 16, and 21 of the constitution of India. The petitioner also demanded setting aside all the rejection letters issued by the respondent. 


In this case, the father of the petitioner had joined the service of APSEB on 01.10.977. while he was working, he went on leave with effect from 06.04.2001 due to ill-health. An application was made by him for retirement on medical invalidation grounds and on the opinion of the medical board he was relieved from the services from 31.08.2001. But later on, a new order was passed stating that the father of the petitioner was deemed to have been relieved from the services from 06.04.2001 and the father of the petitioner died on 26.10.2001 and the pension was sanctioned with effect from 06.04.2001. The petitioner made a representation before the respondents for employment on a compassionate basis but his representation was rejected on the grounds that his father was having only 4 years 10 months balance service and according to them only 5 years or more left-over service candidates are entitled to claiming compassionate appointment. A writ appeal was filed by the respondent on this claim and the court after looking that the petitioner’s father got retired on 06.04.2001 and not on 31.08.2001. Therefore, the rejection of the claim on the ground mentioned above is not correct an order of rejection was set aside and compassionate employment should be provided to the petitioner. The representations made by the petitioner on 04.06.2008 and 15.07.2008 were rejected by the respondents on the grounds that 5 years of service was not completed and compassionate employment to the dependents of the employees who are retired on medical invalidation is unconstitutional and is violative of Article 16 of the constitution. Aggrieved by the continuous rejection of the representations the petitioner files a writ petition before the court. 



The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before the court that the grounds which were invented by the respondent to defeat the claim of the petitioner will not stand for judicial scrutiny as it has been decided in the order of the court itself that setting aside the claim on grounds of tenure of the service is illegal an also amounts to a violation of the order of the court. Further rejecting the second ground the counsel submitted before the court that the respondent permitted to issue appointment orders to the 17 candidates depending upon the medical invalidated employees and the first respondent has also approved their appointment. 

The learned counsel for the respondent submitted before the court that according to the Andhra Pradesh state electricity board, the benefit of compassionate appointment to the dependents of employees, who were retiring on a medical basis was confined to 5 years before attaining the age of superannuation. The counsel further submits that the petitioner’s father has been found not having 5 years leftover service from the date of relief on medical invalidation. 


Though the father of the petitioner expired on 26.10.2001, since the bread earner of the family, unfortunately, met with premature death resulting in untold financial sufferings for the entire family, the representation of the petitioner went unheeded by unfound reasons and the petitioner has to move the courts continuously for the legally entitled relief. Therefore, rejection of representations of the petitioner is not maintainable and respondents are directed to give compassionate employment to the petitioner. 


The court is of the opinion that rejection of the claims of the petitioner is unjust, illegal, and violative of articles 14,16 and 21 of the constitution of India, and accordingly the impugned proceedings are not sustainable in the eyes of law and should be set aside. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to issue compassionate appointment to the petitioner as per his qualification in any suitable post within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

click here to view the judgement 

About the Author