THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.2433 of 2011 ORDER:- (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar) The petitioner in this writ petition is the widow of one late Mohammed Rasheed an office subordinate in the unit of the first respondent i.e. the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and he died on 24.10.2008 while in service. She has filed this writ petition challenging the Official Memorandum No.CCC- Hyd/AW/E1/690/2010 dated 17.02.2010 of the first respondent returning her application for giving her a job under the compassionate appointment scheme. 2. A perusal of the impugned memo of the first respondent would show that he returned the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment on the ground that she submitted it beyond the period of one year from the date of the death of her husband in violation of Government Memo No.34830/Services- A/97-1 dated 19.08.1997. The question now is whether the impugned memo of the first respondent is valid or not. At the stage of admission we requested the Standing Counsel for the second respondent to file counter in the matter and accordingly the first respondent filed his counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. 3. It may be noted that after the death of her husband the petitioner herein made applications dated 02.02.2009, 12.03.2009 and 19.03.2009 to provide employment to her married daughter by name Smt Nazima Begum W/o Mohd. Mahamood. The first respondent rejected the said applications by his earlier memo dated 06.04.2009. The reasons given by the first respondent were that as per G.O.Ms.No.350 dated 30.07.1999 the married daughter is eligible for compassionate appointment if there are no younger or older unmarried dependents in the family and the spouse of the deceased Government servant should be unwilling and ineligible for appointment and further the married daughter should be dependent on her father i.e. the deceased Government servant and that as the petitioner’s daughter did not answer the above requirements her claim was rejected in accordance with the circulars issued in the Government Memo No.406/10/A.I/Admn.II/2004 dated 20.03.2004. Challenging the said memo dated 06.04.2009 the petitioner and her daughter together filed W.P.No.16214 of 2009 pleading that the said memo dated 06.04.2009 should be set aside and her daughter i.e. the second petitioner in the said writ petition should be given compassionate appointment in a suitable post. 4. The said writ petition was dismissed on 04.11.2009 as devoid of merits holding that the compassionate appointment scheme framed through G.O.Ms.No.350 dated 30.07.1999 and the circular in Government Memo No.406/10/A-I/ Admn.II/2004 dated 20.03.2004 specified certain guidelines for giving compassionate appointments to married daughters and the petitioner’s daughter did not fall within those guidelines/requirements. It was held in the said writ petition that the essential requirements to provide a job to a married daughter under compassionate appointment scheme were that the married daughter must have been deserted by her husband or he must have died leaving no property for the daughter and the daughter must be essentially dependent upon her father i.e. the deceased Government servant and they should also be no younger or older unmarried dependents in the family and the spouse of the deceased Government servant should be unwilling or ineligible for appointment. In fact these are the reasons mentioned by the first respondent in his counter for rejecting the earlier applications of the petitioner for giving appointment to her daughter. The order in the above Writ Petition No.16214 of 2009 has also become final. 5. After the dismissal of the said writ petition on 14.11.2009, it is seen the petitioner again made an application on 08.02.2010 this time to provide a suitable job under compassionate appointment scheme to herself. This application of the petitioner as already stated supra was returned by the first respondent on the ground that it cannot be entertained as it was submitted beyond the period of one year from the date of the death of her husband. This memo of the first respondent quotes Government Memo No.34830/ Services-A/97-1 dated 19.08.1997 which says that an application for compassionate appointment should be made within one year from the date of the death of the Government servant. 6. What emerges from the above circumstances is that the petitioner earlier made applications to give compassionate appointment to her married daughter who was not dependent upon the petitioner’s husband and was ineligible as per the above guidelines and this aspect itself shows that the petitioner herself was not in need of a job. In UMESH KUMAR NAGPAL vs. STATE OF HARYANA[1] it has been laid down by our Supreme Court that a compassionate appointment, as the name itself would suggest, is intended to enable a penurious family of the deceased Government servant to tide over the penurious circumstances into which the family is forced following the death of the deceased Government servant and it is not intended to provide employment as a matter of course. 7. From the above circumstances it can be said that this is a case where the petitioner, having failed earlier to secure a job for her married daughter who was not found eligible for compassionate appointment, has now again come up with an application to secure a job for herself taking advantage of the compassionate appointment scheme. We specifically asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to what was the amount of pension the petitioner was receiving but he could not answer the question. This conduct of the petitioner shows that she is just seeking employment not out of any penurious situation but only in her attempt to secure employment for herself as it was denied to her married daughter earlier on the ground of her ineligibility. 8. It should also be noted that in the above referred to Supreme Court decision in UMESH KUMAR NAGPAL’s case it has also been held that the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which is specified in the rules. In the present case the petitioner having failed in her earlier attempt to secure a job to her ineligible married daughter has sent in her application to secure a job for herself after the lapse of one year period prescribed in Government Memo No.34830/Services- A/97-1 dated 19.08.1997 and the stand of the first respondent is that he returned the same as there is no provision for condonation of delay. In the aforesaid Supreme Court decision in the above context of delay it has been held that the consideration for such an employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future its object being to enable the family to tide over the financial crisis caused by the sudden death of the earning member. This is also a clear minus point against the petitioner. 9. In view of the principles laid down in the aforementioned Supreme Court decision and in the circumstances of this case we are of the opinion that this Court should not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 16th March 2011 CVRK [1] (1994) 4 SCC 138