M. Srinath Chari vs Sanjay Kumar, IAS, Principal Secretary, PR & RE Department and Others

This is a contempt case filed by the petitioner, alleging that the respondents committed contempt of Court, by non-implementation of the Order dated 23.04.2025 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 35955 of 2016.

Heard Mr. P. Amarender, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. M. Shalini, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II, appearing on behalf of the respondents. Perused the record.

Brief facts of the case, insofar as relevant for dealing with this contempt case, are as follows:

The petitioner sought compassionate appointment following the death of his brother, Late M. Chandra Sekhar, who died in a road accident in 2010 while serving as a Senior Assistant in the Panchayat Raj Department. The petitioner contended that his deceased brother was the sole breadwinner for the family, which included their 74-year-old mother, the petitioner himself, and another unmarried and mentally unsound brother, M. Murali. The petitioner submitted applications and supporting documents, including a "no earning member" certificate, but his request was rejected twice, first in 2013 and again in 2016, on the ground that his elder married brother, M. Bikshapathi, was a private employee and thus an earning member of the family. The petitioner contended that this elder brother lived separately with his own family and had no financial connection to the petitioner's household, and therefore should not disqualify him from consideration.

This Court, by appreciating the respective contentions and the material placed on record in the writ petition, observed that the respondents themselves admitted in their counter-affidavit that the petitioner was unemployed as of 24.10.2013; and also accepted the petitioner's contention that his married elder brother, M. Bikshapathi, was living separately and had no connection to the family, and thus could not be treated as an "earning member" for the purpose of compassionate appointment rules. Furthermore, the Court observed that the final rejection in 2016 merely cited the earlier 2013 order and failed to consider the revised proposals submitted by the District Collector on 09.02.2016, which clearly stated that the petitioner was not working and that the family was in poor financial condition. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court came to a considered opinion that the petitioner's case deserved sympathetic consideration under the compassionate appointment scheme; and accordingly, set aside the impugned rejection orders dated 02.04.2013, 22.04.2016, and 14.06.2016; and directed the respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders for the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds within a period of eight weeks.

Alleging that the respondents have intentionally not complied with the orders passed by this Court, in W.P. No. 35955 of 2016, dated 23.04.2025, the petitioner filed this contempt case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, pursuant to the order dated 23.04.2025, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 27.06.2025 to the respondents requesting for implementation of the order. Despite this representation no compassionate appointment has been granted to him. He further relies upon an internal correspondence dated 05.03.2026, under which the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj addressed a letter to the Government seeking issuance of necessary orders. Learned counsel contends that this correspondence demonstrates that the matter remained pending within the respondent authorities, and the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj was still seeking necessary governmental orders, despite a timebound direction by this Court. It is contended that administrative process does not excuse the failure to comply with the judicial direction, and that there is no legal justification, or explanation for the delay.

Learned counsel relies on the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Metla Deena Margaret v. The State of Andhra Pradesh^{11.W.P. No. 25156 of 2022 (High Court of A.P)}, wherein the Court recorded as follows:

Learned counsel would also rely on Deshaboina Veerababu v. Ajay Mishra, IAS, Principal Secretary^{22.2019 (5) ALT 412 (TS)}.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.1-Principal Secretary essentially contending that the Contempt Case is misconceived. It is contended that the authorities acted upon the directions of this Court by examining the petitioner's claim under the applicable compassionate-appointment rules, obtaining the necessary records, consulting the General Administration Department (GAD), and ultimately issuing a reasoned and speaking order dated 29.06.2026 rejecting the petitioner's request because he is a married brother of the deceased employee and therefore does not fall within the prescribed category of eligible dependents.

It is contended that the District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District, submitted proposals concerning the petitioner to the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, Hyderabad, through Letter dated 02.08.2025, however, the proposals initially did not contain copies of the necessary documents required for considering the petitioner's claim. Consequently, the District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District, was asked to furnish the missing documents so that the compassionate-appointment request could be properly examined. The District Panchayat Officer thereafter submitted the required documents to the Commissioner, PR&RE, Hyderabad, through Letter dated 23.12.2025. Upon examination of those documents, the authorities found that the petitioner was married. It is contended that the applicable Government orders restrict eligibility for compassionate appointment to specified dependents and, the rules require a younger brother or sister of the deceased Government servant to have remained unmarried.

The matter was subsequently processed at the Government level. The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj, submitted the proposals through Letter dated 05.03.2026, following which the file was circulated to the Advisory Department, namely the General Administration Department (GAD), for its views. The Advisory Department examined the case and recorded that the deceased employee, Sri M. Chandra Shekar, had expired on 01.11.2010 and that his brother Sri M. Srinath Chary was seeking compassionate appointment, but that the petitioner was a married brother of the deceased employee and did not fall within the category of eligible dependents prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.612, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 30.10.1991.

The respondent places particular reliance upon G.O.Ms.No.612, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 30.10.1991. It states that paragraph (2)(i) of that Government Order provides that the younger brother or sister of a deceased Government servant who remained unmarried could be considered for appointment under the compassionate-appointment scheme, provided there was no other earning member in the family, while cases that had previously come up for consideration were not required to be reopened.

The respondent also relies upon Circular Memo No. 60681/Ser.A/2003-1, dated 12.06.2003, issued by the General Administration Department, concerning the scheme of compassionate appointment to dependents of deceased Government employees who died in harness and whose whereabouts were not known. The respondent specifically refers to paragraph II of part C, dealing with unmarried Government employees, under which the younger brother or sister of the deceased Government servant who remained unmarried was included. Therefore, the petitioner's request is not feasible under the existing provisions of G.O.Ms.No.612 dated 30.10.1991 and Circular Memo dated 12.06.2003, because he is married. It is contended that after considering the governing provisions and the petitioner's marital status, the authorities rejected the request for compassionate appointment on the ground that the petitioner did not fall within the category of eligible dependents because he was married, and the said decision was formally communicated through a speaking order, namely Memo dated 29.06.2026. Contending that compassionate appointment is not a right, the respondent relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi Kumar^{33.(2019) 3 SCC 653}, and Tinku v. State of Haryana^{44.2024 SCC OnLine SC 3292}.

Though separate counter affidavits have been filed by respondents No.2, 3, and 4, i.e., Commissioner for Panchayat Raj, State of Telangana, District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, and District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District, respectively; in essence, the stand of the respondents No. 2, 3, and 4 is that there has been no willful or deliberate disobedience of the order dated 23.04.2025, passed by this Court in the writ petition. It is also their contention that they have actively processed the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment through the proper administrative channels. It is asserted that pursuant to the judgment, the petitioner's representation was received and forwarded by the District Panchayat Officer to the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj, who then submitted a detailed report to the Government on 05.03.2026 seeking necessary orders. The delay in implementation is not due to any intentional non-compliance on their part, but rather because the final decision-making authority rests with the Government and its advisory departments, whose orders are still awaited. The respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 would therefore contend that they have complied with the Court's direction in its true spirit to the extent of their respective administrative roles and seek closure of the contempt proceedings. The 2^nd respondent however requests for additional time of 3 months for compliance.

Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it may be noted that this Court disposed of the writ petition by recording a finding that the petitioner's case deserved sympathetic consideration for compassionate appointment. Further, this Court did not direct the respondents to reconsider the matter indefinitely or commence a fresh administrative exercise. It set aside the impugned orders dated 02.04.2013, 22.04.2016 and 14.06.2016 and directed the respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

At the stage of contempt proceedings, the only point relevant for consideration is whether the order passed by the Court has been implemented or not.

This Court has specifically directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders of appointment of the petitioner within the specified timeframe; and there is no direction to the respondent authorities to re-examine the case of the petitioner. Further, unless the order passed by the Court has been stayed by this Court in review proceedings or stayed by a higher forum in appeal proceedings, the respondent authorities are bound to implement the order. Further, mere filing of review or appeal does not by itself restrain the authorities from implementing the order passed by this Court, and therefore the authorities cannot take the excuse that a review petition or appeal is pending before this Court, unless the order challenged therein has been explicitly stayed. Despite the specific orders of this Court to appoint the petitioner, the respondents have embarked on a fresh administrative exercise of determining the eligibility of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, and did not comply with the orders passed by this Court in the writ petition. Therefore, on this count alone, as per the judgment in Deshaboina Veerababu (supra), the conduct of the respondent authorities amounts to contempt of Court, and they are liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Now, coming to the manner in which the case of the petitioner was rejected despite specific directions of this Court, it is to be noted that the respondent specifically refers to paragraph II of part C, and the said provision deals with unmarried Government employees, under which the younger brother or sister of the deceased Government servant who remained unmarried was included. By referring to paragraph II of Part C, the respondent rejected the petitioner's request stating that compassionate appointment is not feasible under the existing provisions of G.O.Ms.No.612 dated 30.10.1991 and Circular Memo dated 12.06.2003, because the petitioner is married, and therefore the petitioner did not fall within the category of eligible dependents.

In this connection, it is relevant to refer to note Metla Deena Margaret (supra), whereunder the words "remained unmarried" have been clarified. A perusal of the judgment in Metla Deena Margaret (supra) would reveal that the words "remained unmarried" were used with regard to the marital status of the deceased Government servant (and not with regard to the marital status of compassionate appointee). The deceased Government Servant should be "unmarried", and continues to remain unmarried until his demise. And, only in such a case of deceased Government Servant who was unmarried by the date of his death, the question of appointing his brother/sister, on compassionate basis, would arise.

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the fresh exercise of examining the candidature of the petitioner for the compassionate appointment as resorted to by the respondent authorities, despite the specific orders of this Court directing the authorities to pass appropriate orders appointing the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration, and the further action of the respondent authorities culminating in Memo dated 29.06.2026, clearly amount to contempt of Court. The Memo dated 29.06.2026 is not sustainable either on the facts or law, in the context of the binding directions contained in the judgment dated 23.04.2025. The respondents were bound to implement the orders of this Court in the specified timeframe, and they could not have re-examined the issue or take the excuse of administrative processing delays.

Accordingly, the contempt case is allowed with a direction to the 1^st respondent to issue appointment orders in favour of the petitioner, by appointing him in a suitable post on compassionate grounds, within four weeks from today. The respondents are further directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, payable in favour of the Telangana High Court Advocates Association, within four weeks from today. Any delay in appointment of the petitioner, or payment of fine, as directed above, shall be viewed seriously. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.