ARJUNA RAO G Vs. PRL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was made to retire by the second respondent on medical invalidation filed this Writ Petition questioning the inaction on the part of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner's son for appointment on compassionate grounds.

(2.) At the outset I would like to place on record that this is a very harsh case. The petitioner while working as driver on water tanker in the second respondent-Corporation was deputed by the second respondent to attend Natural Calamities Relief and Rehabilitation Work in Vulavapadu, Ongole District by his proceedings dated 28-10-1996. While he was transporting drinking water to the flood affected area through deep waters floating on the roads on 31-10-1996 the tractor fell into a ditch and the petitioner was run over by the tractor and the tanker. Thereafter, his both legs were amputated and while convulsing he made an application in June, 1997 to the second respondent to consider the case of his son for appointment on compassionate grounds. At that stage, the second respondent seemed to have referred the petitioner to the Medical Board for its opinion and the Medical Board in its opinion dated 16-7-1997 categorically recorded a finding that the petitioner became permanently incapacitated to discharge the duties of a driver. On the basis of the said information, the petitioner was made to retire from service on medical invalidation on 27-9-1997. Thereafter, the second respondent in his proceedings dated 24-11-1997 sought permission of the first respondent to permit him to consider the case of the petitioner's son for appointment on compassionate grounds as per his eligibility. But, as the petitioner did not hear anything from the respondents, he filed the present writ petition on 3-11-1998 and this Court in W.P.M.P.No. 37509 of 1998 by order dated 5-11-1998 directed the 1st respondent to consider the case of the petitioner's son for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the recommendation of the 2nd respondent. When the respondents did not move in the matter, the petitioner got a legal notice issued on 15-2-1999 duly bringing to the notice of the respondents the orders passed by this Court and if no orders are passed pursuant to the above orders he will be compelled to file a contempt case against them for flouting the orders of this Court. At that stage, the 1st respondent in his Memo No. 29673/NI/98-2, M.A., dated 24-02-1999 directed the 2nd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner's son for appointment in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 214, General Administration (Service) Department Dated 9-6-1998 which was extended to Municipalities/Municipal Corporations vide G.O.Rt.No. 76 M.A., dated 27-1-1999. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent seemed to have sought for clarification whether the case of the petitioner's son can be considered for compassionate appointment as the petitioner was not having 5 years of service as on the date of his retirement on medical invalidation. The matter stood at that stage. Now the Government filed counter stating that initially the request of the petitioner was rejected by the Government in Memo. No. 28453/NI/97-I.M.A. dated 23-12-1997 and a further representation was made by him. Pursuant to the change in the policy, the directions were given by the Government on 24-2-1999 to consider the case of the petitioner's son as per the terms of G.O.Ms.No. 214 dated 9-6-1998. I have seen the order of rejection dated 23-12-1997. Though a copy was marked to the individual concerned, the same was not served on the petitioner till this date. The counter filed by the respondents is also silent on this aspect. Hence, an inference has to be drawn that the order was never served on the petitioner.

(3.) Be that as it may, pursuant to the interim orders of this Court dated 5-11-1998, the 1st respondent informed the petitioner that the Commissioner was directed to consider his case as per G.O.Ms.No. 214 dated 9-6-1998. As the dispute is only with regard to left out service of the petitioner, I need not refer entire provisions of this G.O., except stating that in Para No. 6 of the said G.O., the Government directed that all the cases/proposals of compassionate appointments to the dependents of Government employees who retired on medical invalidation that arose between 01-08-1996 to date, shall also be processed and disposed off as per these orders. Under Para No. 5 it is stated that after receiving the recommendation of the District Level Committee and after considering the medical report recommending retirement of the individual on medical invalidation, the appointing authority or the head of department, as the case may be in the district, has to issue the retirement orders on grounds of medical invalidation and to appoint dependents of such Government employees who are permitted to retire on medical invalidation as per the existing instructions on the scheme. It is also made clear that such compassionate appointment will be confined only to the department in which retirement of the employees on Medical Invalidation was ordered. The only question now to be examined is whether the five years period has to be counted from the date of the order retiring the petitioner on medical invalidation or these years date back to the date of accident. It is not in dispute, if the retirement dates back to the date of accident, the petitioner was having clearly more than 5 years of service and his son is entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. But, the contention of the respondents in this case is that from the date of retirement i.e., 27-9-1997 the petitioner is left with only 4 years 8 months of service. Hence, the dependents of the petitioner cannot be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. I cannot accede to the contention of the respondents. It is not in dispute that from the date of accident the petitioner is not in service. It is also not the case of the respondents that they are not aware of the accident and amputation of the legs of the petitioner. When once both the legs of the petitioner were amputated, a duty is cast on the respondents to refer the case of the petitioner to the Medical Board to obtain report. In this case, even a medical report was not required because both the legs were amputated and the petitioner cannot discharge his duties as driver. After the accident took place, the respondents dragged the matter for more than an year and it is only on 27-9-1997 the 2nd respondent passed order retiring the petitioner on medical invalidation. On the basis of the information of the medical board dated 16-6-1997,I am of the view that the invalidation dates back to the date of amputation of the legs of the petitioner and if the period is counted from that date, the petitioner is having more than 5 years of service.