AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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.
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 effected 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 at him 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 WP MP 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 respondent 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.2973/NI/98-2, MA dated 24-2-1999 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 GO 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.212 dated 9-6-1998. 1 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.
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 N.6 of the G.O., the Government directed that alt the cases/proposals of compassionate appointments to the dependents of Government employees who retired on medical invalidation that arose between 1-8-1996 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 dates 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 was 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 16-7-1997. 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.
Even assuming without admitting that the respondents are right in raising this objection it should be kept in mind that the scheme envisaged for compassionate appointment on medical grounds is intended for those persons who were retired because of the bodily ailments which cannot be directly attributed to the nature of duties that are being discharged by him. In this case the petitioner lost his two legs while discharging his duties in unfavourable conditions i.e., during the cyclone when people are unable to get drinking water because of the pollution of the water available in and around human hebetated areas and the drinking water was brought there to save so many lives and in discharging duties in such hazardous circumstances and the nature was cruel to him, T feel that the Government inspite of standing on technicalities would have come forward in extending a helping hand to a man in distress. Hence, I am of the opinion that there is absolutely no application of mind to the facts of the case by the officers concerned. With the result, the poor man who lost his two legs about 3 years back was running from pillar to post to get livelihood through his son. Lastly, the Government Pleader contended that the petitioner was given ex-gratia and he is being given pension and other benefits. It should be kept in mind that the Government is not granting ex-grtia as a bounty. They are bound to grant the ex-gratia to meet the expenses incurred by the petitioner in getting himself treated and as far as the payment of pension and other attendant benefits are concerned they are doing so for the services rendered by him and not on mercy. In this case it should also be kept in mind that the accident attracts the provisions of Workmens'' Compensation Act and had the petitioner approached the Commissioner. I am of the view that he would have got much more than what he asked for in his representation. Without doing so, under fond hope that the Government will extend helping hand to mitigate the circumstances in which he is placed he sought for appointment of his son on compassionate grounds but unfortunately the Government kept a deaf ear to a genunie and bona fide representation of the petitioner.
For all these reasons. I am inclined to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and appoint the son of the petitioner Mr. G. Ajay Kumar on compassionate grounds in the office of the 2nd respondent as per his qualification and eligibility forthwith. The order has to be complied with within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.