1 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND WRIT PETITION No.13954 of 2010 ORDER: The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following relief: “….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in rejecting the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment vide Memo No.JS(Per)/DS(Estt)/ AS(R&V)-NT/PO-J/586/08, dated 24.01.2009, and further action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment by extending the same relaxation of the terms and conditions as extended to others vide Memo No.GM(A)/DS(P)/AS(P)/PO.B1/42/99-1, dated 28.12.1999 as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India”. 02) Heard Sri G.V. Shivaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record. 03) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner, while working as Junior Plant Attendant (JPA) in the 3rd respondent, had expired on 08.04.2008. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment in favour of the petitioner in the month of July, 2008. Thereupon, the respondents issued Memo No.JS(Per)/DS(Estt)/AS(R&V)-NT/PO-J/586/08, dated 2 24.01.2009, rejecting the case of the petitioner, on the ground that the mother of the petitioner is employed as JPA. When an officer of the rank of Divisional Engineer namely M. Govardhana Rao had expired and though his wife was working as Senior Section Supervisor, P&T Department under Central Government, her son was considered for appointment as J.P.A., and accordingly, he was appointed, vide Memo, dated 28.12.1999, on compassionate grounds while relaxing the terms of the scheme. 04) He further submits that the scheme of compassionate appointment has been framed vide B.P.Ms.No.119, dated 10.02.1982 and the respondent corporation being the successive entity of the then APSEB has been following the same policy. As per the revised policy guidelines, a son or a daughter or spouse of a deceased employee who dies in harness be appointed as LDC or equivalent post subject to condition that there being no other earning member in the family. Having came to know that the above relaxation extended by the respondent corporation vide Memo dated 28.12.1999, the petitioner made detailed representation dated 13.03.2009, seeking the same relief. On receipt of the said representation, respondent No.3 sent the same to Respondent No.1 vide Letter No.CEE/0&M/ Dr.NTTPS/ Adm/C.1/ F.62/ D.No.682/2009, 3 dated 31.03.2009, but the same has not been considered till date. He further submits that in spite of making representation for compassionate appointment by granting relaxation as was done in other case, the respondents have not been considering the same. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 05) No counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents. However, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per scheme for providing employment to the dependents of deceased Board employees approved a B.P.Ms.No.119, dated 10.02.1982, if there is any earning member in the family of the deceased employee, dependents of the deceased are not entitled to employment under this scheme. As such, there is no infirmity in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for providing employment under the compassionate grounds as he is not eligible to consider under the scheme. The learned counsel also contended that a contention of the petitioner could not be considered to consider the case of the petitioner on par with the case of one M. Amarnath S/o late Govardhana Rao for whom the respondents gave appointment by relaxing the conditions of scheme is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. 06) Having heard the submissions of both the counsel and upon careful consideration of the material available on record, there is no dispute that the father of petitioner while working as 4 Junior Plant Attendant in the 3rd respondent had expired on 08.04.2008 and thereafter the mother of petitioner submitted application for compassionate appointment in favour of the petitioner in the month of July, 2008. The entire family consists of the petitioner and four daughters, who have been married. As averred in the affidavit of the petitioner, during the life time of the deceased i.e., father of the petitioner, as he was suffering with kidney failure, the family got so much expenditure for his treatment and as a result, the entire family is in indigenous circumstances as on that date. The mother of the petitioner was aged 51 years as on the date of the filing of the Writ Petition in the year 2010 and she is working as Junior Plant Attendant and she is not in a position to get further education to the petitioner. Under those circumstances, she made application in favour of the petitioner for providing compassionate appointment. 07) It averred in the affidavit of the petitioner that the post of Mazdoor in generating stations has been converted as Junior Plant Attendant and as such, the mother of petitioner was working as cleaner in canteen of VTPS and the post of cleaner was in the category of Mazdoor and the same post of Mazdoor has been re-designated as JPA and the fact remains that the mother of petitioner is a “cleaner” in canteen of VTPS. It is 5 contended that the employment of the mother of the petitioner, who is a “petty employee” working as “cleaner” cannot be a ground for rejection of the case of the petitioner in view of the indigenous conditions. The petitioner filed a Memo No.GM(A)/DS(P)/ AS(P)/PO.B1/42/99-1, dated 28.12.1999 in the material papers along with this Writ Petition to establish that the respondents appointed one Sri M. Amarnath S/o late M. Govardhana Rao, Ex-DE/E1., VTPS as JPA at VTPS on compassionate grounds as a special case relaxing the condition of Para-3 (i) of B.P.Ms.No.119, dated 10.02.1982. In the said case the deceased M. Govardhana Rao, who was working as Divisional Engineer and his wife was working as Senior Section Supervisor, P & T Department, Government of India and consequent to the death of the said M. Govardhana Rao, their son was considered for appointment as JPA on compassionate grounds and the case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the mother of petitioner is working as JPA which is nothing but discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 08) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that if one illegal action is taken, a person whose case is similar cannot invoke Article 14 and demand similar relief illegally. 6 09) This Court gave anxious consideration to the contentions of both sides. There can be no different opinion about the legal proposition as stated by the learned counsel for the respondents. But in the case on hand, in our opinion, there was no illegality on the part of the respondents in relaxing the condition in para No.3(i) of the B.P.Ms.No.119, dated 10.02.1982 providing employment vide Memo No.GM(A)/DS(P)/ AS(P)/PO.B1/42/99-1, dated 28.12.1999 to the dependents of the deceased i.e., M. Govardhana Rao, DE/E1/VTPS for appointment as JPA at VTPS on compassionate grounds as a special case in view of the condition of the family is indigenous and in great distress. It is for the respondents to take such decision to relax the conditions of B.P.Ms.No.199 basing on the facts and circumstances of the each case and this Court cannot find fault with its decisions. In the opinion of this Court, the respondents ought to have applied the same analogy in the case of the petitioner also, which was applied in the case of the deceased Divisional Engineer namely M. Govardhana Rao for considering for appointment as JPA in view of the indigenous position of the family of the petitioner. As and when the respondents are able to relax the condition under special circumstances, the same relaxation has to be provided in the case of the petitioner also in view of the fact that the petitioner’s mother was working as “cleaner” in canteen of VTPS, though 7 she was designated as “Junior Plant Attendant” and in view of the family of the petitioner is also in indigenous condition and in great distress. 10) In fairness and in view of the fact that the decision of the respondents in relaxing the conditions of the B.P.Ms.No.119, dated 10.02.1982 in Memo No.GM(A)/DS(P)/AS(P)/PO.B1/ 42/99-1, dated 28.12.1999, in the case of similarly situated person, had attained finality, the respondents ought to have gracefully accepted the request made by the petitioner by granting similar benefit to the petitioner also. As per the averments in the affidavit of the petitioner, the petitioner studied B.Sc. apart from having technical qualification of ITI and he is eligible for the post of Lab Assistant or JPA or any other suitable post. In such circumstances, the respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioner on par with the other candidate in favour of whom the rule was relaxed as a special case considering the indigenous circumstances of the family of the petitioner, without showing any discrimination, which is against to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 11) For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is disposed of and the Memo No.JS(Per)/DS(Estt)/AS(R&V)- NT/PO-J/586/08, dated 24.01.2009 is hereby set aside 8 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment by extending the same relaxation of the terms and conditions as extended to others vide Memo No.GM(A)/DS(P)/AS(P)/PO.B1/42/99-1, dated 28.12.1999, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. There is no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ BATTU DEVANAND, J Date: 18-01.2021 Note: Issue CC in two days. B/o PGR