THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO:15728 OF 2010 DATE:02.11.2011 BETWEEN P.SANTHOSH REDDY …PETITIONER AND STATE OF AP REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & OTHERS …RESPONDENTS. THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO:15728 OF 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus to declare clause 4 of G.O.Ms.No:504, dated 11.8.2008 issued by the 1st respondent and the consequential proceedings dated 16.11.2009 in A1-219/Estt/2008-2009 on the file of the 3rd respondent in so far as it relates to case of the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, irrational and ultra vires the provisions of A.P (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of Staff Pattern and Pay Structures) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) and voilative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India by directing the respondents to forthwith provide suitable employment to the petitioner on compassionate basis with reference to Clause 4 of G.O.Ms.No:504, dated 11.8.2008 issued by the 1st respondent. The case of the petitioner is that his father viz., Madhusudhan Reddy died on 8.3.1994 in extremist violence Two extremists belong to C.P.I (ML) PWG entered into their house on 8.3.1994 and fire two rounds and ran away on a motor cycle. His father was shifted to Shanthana Nursing Home and while undergoing treatment, he died. His father was an Ex Mandal Parishad President of Varni Mandal and lived at Rakasipet Locality of Bodhan and he belonged to Congress-I party. A case in Cr.No:75 of 1994 under section 302 IPC, section 27 of the Indian Arms Act and sections 3 and 4 of TADA Act has been registered. Initially, an ex gratia amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid to his mother vide proceedings of the 2nd respondent on 13.3.1994. His further case is that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No:469 dated 8.11.1996 wherein the Government has decided that apart from payment of ex gratia amount to the next kith and kin of the deceased persons who die in extremist violence, employment to son or daughter or spouse of any person killed in extremist violence or any police firing shall be provided. The 2nd respondent was authorized to issue orders in respect of all the Departments wherein there is vacancy up to the level of Junior Assistant/Typist depending upon the qualification of the applicant. The 2nd respondent was also authorized to grant relaxation of age on case to case basis and the said order came into effect from 26.2.1996. While so, there after, another order in G.O.Ms.No:76, dated 4.3.1998 came to be issued by the 1st respondent and some other relaxations have been given thereunder. To give effect to the intention of the Government to provide employment to the dependants of the persons who are killed in extremist violence, the State legislature has amended section 4 of the Act. According to section 4 (2) (b) of the Act, compassionate appointment can be made in favour of son or daughter or spouse of any person killed in extremist violence or in police firing who is not accused of an offence in accordance with the relevant orders issued from time to time and that the said amended act was passed on 28.4.1997. It is his further case that thereafter, the 1st respondent has issued G.O.Ms.No:504, dated 11.8.2008. Clause (3) of the said G.O provides that the benefit of providing appointment to the dependants of the deceased shall be given to those killed in extremist violence prior to 26.2.1996. Clause (4) of the said G.O states that the age and educational qualifications of the dependant family members seeking employment shall be satisfied as on the date of death or respective civilian. The said clause is illegal and arbitrary. It is his further case that he made an application seeking compassionate appointment on 30.8.2008 to the 2nd respondent since he became eligible in view of G.O.Ms.No:504 dated 11.8.2008. Thereafter, on 16.11.2009, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned proceedings rejecting his case along with others. It is his further case that in view of the relaxations granted in G.O.Ms.No:504 dated 11.8.2008, he became eligible for seeking compassionate appointment. But, the clause 4 of the said G.O which states that the age and educational qualifications of dependants seeking employment shall be satisfied as on the date of death of respective civilian, is arbitrary and irrational. It is his further case that by the date of death of his father, he was aged only 12 years and it would be impossible for him to have the requisite qualification or age then. The provisions of the Act provide for compassionate appointment whereas clause 4 of the G.O.Ms.No:504 defeats the very purpose of the said Act. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. On behalf of the respondents, the 2nd respondent filed the counter denying the claim of the petitioner and contending inter alia that the applicant is not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of the orders of the Government wherein the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No:504, GA (SC A) Department dated 11.8.2008 read with Government Memo No:32358/SC. A/A2/2007-2009, dated 11.11.2008 that the age and education qualification of dependent family members seeking employment shall be satisfied as on the date of death of the respective civilian in addition to that the deceased is not an accused in any offence and the applicant shall file the application within three months from 11.8.2008 i.e., the date of G.O.Ms.No:504. Thereafter his request has been considered and rejected by the Collector, Nizamabad vide Reference No:A2/3238/2008, dated 24.4.2009 and the same has been communicated to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are in accordance with law. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. While reiterating the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the very rejection of the case of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner does not satisfy the criteria of age as contemplated under G.O.Ms.No:504, dated 11.8.2008, is unreasonable and illegal and therefore, the impugned order is illegal and voilative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, the learned G.P appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that it is true that certain concessions have been provided by the Government to the dependants of the deceased persons killed in the extremist violence and G.O.Ms.No:504, dated 11.8.2008 is one of such orders whereunder the eligibility criteria has been made for providing employment to the dependents of the deceased died his father expired in the year 1994and the case of several other candidates for compassionate appointment. The 2nd respondent Excertiorari to call for the records in I.D.35 of 1995, dated 10.4.1996 on the file of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad and to quash the same. The petitioner is a workman and the 2nd respondent is the Management-employer. The workman was the operator of the machine and was performing the duties of printing and quoting some wrappers in the film industry. He was appointed in the employment of the 2nd respondent on 6.4.1984 as helper and thereafter, he was promoted as operator. On the ground that he was responsible for shades in the film, he was placed under suspension and he was issued a show cause notice and an enquiry was conducting by appointing an enquiry officer and after conducting an enquiry, he was dismissed from service by order dated 7.10.1984. Aggrieved by the same, the workman raised an Industrial Dispute by filing a claim petition under section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act to set aside the order of the dismissal and to grant reinstatement with back wages and other benefits. The learned Labour Court by award dated 10.7.1996 in I.D.No:35 of 1995 dismissed the I.D. Aggrieved by the same, the workman has filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. The case of the workman is that he was appointed as a helper in the factory of the 2nd respondent with effect from 6.4.1984 on a monthly salary of Rs.375/p p.m. and he had been discharging his duties sincerely and honestly without any remarks. Having satisfied with his services, the 2nd respondent promoted him from helper to slitting operator and enhanced his salary from Rs.375/- to Rs.450/- p.m. and on the retirement of the Printing Operator, he was also promoted to the post of Printing Operator and his last drawn salary was Rs.2,335/- p.m. The 2nd respondent having availed the services of the workman and other workers for over time, paid only single balance wages. It is his further case that while that the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 4.5.1994 which was received by him on 12.5.1994 alleging that he had done over coating to the 12 reels of BOPP-transparent film and he also gave a reply while denying the charge and stating that he completed his work and the same was verified by his Supervisor and the said Supervisor had fully satisfied with his work on 30.4.1994 and he did not know about the said 12 reels of BOPP-transparent film supplied to Messrs.Namdhari Industries and he also did not know about any complaint and the loss of Rs.28,000/- in that regard and that the above charge was framed against him on the ground that he was duly elected as working President of the Union in the company of the 2nd respondent. It is his further case that the 2nd respondent issued enquiry notice, dated 31.5.1994 fixing the date of enquiry on 7.6.1994 at 10.30 A.M. and in the said letter, the 2nd respondent did not mention the name of the enquiry officer and he was not furnished with the copy of enquiry notice to the enquiry officer. However, Sri K.Rangaiah, Advocate conducted the enquiry as an Enquiry Officer on 7.6.1994 itself and on the same day, the enquiry was completed. The 2nd respondent did not supply the enquiry proceedings to him. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The learned counsel for the workman would contend that the petitioner was appointed as a printing operator and his duty was to coat the film under the supervision of the supervisor and on the relevant date i.e., 30.4.1994, he coated the film under the supervision of the supervisor and the said supervisor had satisfied with the work done by him. Thereafter, he did not know as to what happened to the issue till he was placed under suspension on the ground that he was responsible for the over coating of the film and also for sustaining the loss worth Rs.28,000/- as noticed by the 2nd respondent vide letter dated 2.5.1994 and 2.6.1994 stated to have been addressed by Messrs.xxxxx Industries. In the absence of the said letters either before the Enquiry officer or the tribunal, the enquiry that took place in the matter is only a formal but not any reality. It appears that the learned tribunal has gone through the aspect of procedure that has been followed by the enquiry officer during the course of the enquiry. But, the question of validty of the enquiry has not been considered property. Had it been consider, it would be possible for the tribunal to assess the responsibility of the petitioner as to whether he was responsible for causing such loss by over coating the film. Ultimately, the said two letters _________________ Justice G.Chandraiah Gurc. Date:02.11.2011 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO:15728 OF 2010 DATE:02.11.2011