SK IMRAN ALI Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Father of the petitioner worked as Head Constable in Khammam II Town Police Station, Khammam. He submitted application dated 08.01.2011 seeking permission to retire from service on medical invalidation grounds as he was suffering with Brain Hemorrhage. He has also requested to provide appointment on compassionate grounds to the petitioner. By order dated 15.02.2012, father of the petitioner was permitted to retire from service on medical invalidation grounds w.e.f. 29.02.2012. However, appointment on compassionate ground is not provided in spite of several representations made by the petitioner and his father. In response to the representations made on 30.01.2016 and 30.08.2017, vide Memorandum dated 13.09.2017, the 2nd respondent directed the 4th respondent to provide employment to the petitioner, but so far no decision is taken. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging paragraph-17 of G.O.Ms.No.661 General Administration (SER.G) Department, dated 23.10.2008, where under 5% of the vacancies meant to be filled up by direct recruitment is reserved to provide employment to dependent of employee retired on medical invalidation grounds. Though no reasons are assigned in the writ petition why the challenge is made to validity of paragraph-17 of said G.O., it appears from the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitioner, petitioner's claim to provide employment is not acceded as 5% quota was filled, and there was no vacancy available to accommodate the petitioner.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for petitioner, once a scheme is introduced providing employment to a person who is dependent of an employee retired compulsorily much prior to the actual date of retirement on the ground of medical invalidation, the claim of retired employee and his dependents cannot be confined to a fixed quota/ceiling and such claim has to be considered based on the merit of the claim. She would submit that the validity of the scheme of compassionate appointment on medical invalidation grounds was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.Siva Murthy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2008 13 SCC 730. Consequent to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the scheme is reintroduced. She would therefore submit that prescribing 5% ceiling is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that before retirement of father of petitioner, this fact was not informed. So far no decision is communicated to the petitioner. Petitioner and his family members are made to suffer for eight long years for not fault of them. In support of her contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.5437 of 2017 and in W.P.No.40326 of 2017.