Barri Lakshmi, W/O Late Ramachandra Rao and Bari Chandra Sakhar, S/O Late Ramachandra Rao V. The Union of India, Petroleum Corporation of India, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, New Delhi and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Rep. by its HR Manager, The Petroleum House, 17, Jashdeji, Tata Road, Murnbni- 400 020 and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, (Visakha Refinery) Rep. by its HR Manager, PB No.15, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam

WP/7548/2018

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Barri Lakshmi and Bari Chandra Sakhar, the wife and son of the late Ramachandra Rao, against Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others, seeking employment on compassionate grounds following the death of Ramachandra Rao, who was an employee of the corporation. The petitioners argued that they were entitled to employment under the Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme (SBFS) as they had opted for a specific clause that promised employment to dependents of deceased employees. The respondents contended that the scheme had been discontinued and that the petitioners had not met the necessary conditions for employment under the scheme. The court dismissed the petition, citing the discontinuation of the scheme and the failure of the petitioners to apply for employment within the required timeframe.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 700563 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: State Bank of India and another v. Raj Kumar, Secretary to Government Department of Education (Primary) and Others Vs. Bheemesh @ Bheemappa, Canara Bank and another v. M.Mahesh Kumar, The State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari and others etc., Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Hakim Singh, State of Haryana vs. Ankur Gupta, Jagadish Prasad vs. State of Bihar, Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra, State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, Union Bank of India & Ors. Vs. M.T. Latheesh
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: Y V KUMAR; T SRINIVAS; A V S LAXMI
• Assessee Lawyers: A S C BOSE
• Keywords: Employment; Promissory Estoppel; Writ of Mandamus; Compassionate Grounds; Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme
• Section: 8(a); 7(b)(ii)

Judgement Text

"APHC010170032018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 7548/2018 Between: 1. BARRI LAKSHMI, W/O LATE RAMACHANDRA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O D.NO.57-3- 1/1,DURGA NAGAR, KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM 2. BARI CHANDRA SAKHAR, S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA RAO, HINDU, AGED 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O R/O D.NO.57-3- 1/1,DURGA NAGAR, KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, PETROLEUM CORPORATION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS PRL.SECRETARY, NEW DELHI 2. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD, REP. BY ITS HR MANAGER, THE PETROLEUM HOUSE, 17, JASHEDJI, TATA ROAD, MURNBNI- 400 020 3. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD, (VISAKHA REFINERY) REP.BY ITS HR MANAGER, PB NO.15, MALKAPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. A S C BOSE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Y V ANIL KUMAR (Central Government Counsel) 2. T SRINIVAS 2 3. A V S LAXMI The Court made the following: ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of a WRIT of MANDAMUS declaring the action of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not providing a job to Petitioner No.2 under compassionate grounds pursuant to the option letter dated 14.05.2004 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against to the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and consequently to direct Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the Petitioners‟ case in providing an alternative job pursuant to the option letter dated 14.05.2004, and to pass such other order or orders.” 2. The case of the Petitioners, in brief, is as follows: a. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the wife and son respectively of late Barri Ramachandra Rao, who died on 02.04.2004, while in service at Respondent No.3 Corporation in Visakhapatnam. After the death of the husband of Petitioner No.1, the family was paid death benefits to a tune of Rs.8,55,901/-. Respondent authorities introduced a scheme known as Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme1 on 11.05.2004. Petitioners have opted Clause 7 (b) (ii) / 8-A wherein 100% of last drawn salary of the deceased employee will be paid till the superannuation of the employee. Accordingly, Petitioners submitted their option letter on 14.05.2004 in response to the letter received from the Respondents, dated 02.04.2004 informing the scheme. In pursuance to the scheme, Petitioners have deposited the entire death benefits. 1 hereinafter referred to as „SBFS‟ scheme 3 b. It is stated that the Petitioners were informed from time to time that Respondent No.3 would communicate them as and when the job is available. Three employment notifications were given from 2004 and 2015. Whenever Petitioner No.2 enquired with Respondent No.3, they used to tell him that they would call them when the job is available. Petitioners are getting 100% pay of the last drawn salary of the deceased, but were not provided with employment on compassionate grounds. c. It is further stated that, ultimately, Petitioners were informed that the scheme has been withdrawn in the year 2007 itself and denied to provide employment on compassionate grounds. The action of Respondent No.3 amounts to promissory estoppels. Hence, having no other option, Petitioners got issued a legal notice on 02.12.2015 and also met the Authorities on many occasions, but except showing sympathy, they have not provided the employment. 3. The key averments of the counter filed Respondents 1 to 3, in brief, are as follows: a. The Writ Petition is not maintainable for non-disclosure of material facts which are essential for adjudication of the petition. It is submitted that, at present there is no scheme to provide employment to the dependant family member of the deceased employee on compassionate grounds. An appointment under the scheme can be made only if the scheme is in force and not after its withdrawal. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate the existence of any legal or constitutional right to claim the relief of compassionate appointment. HPCL is a Government of India undertaking falling under the administrative jurisdiction of the Ministry of 4 Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi. It has one refinery at Visakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh. b. It is submitted that the husband of Petitioner No.1 had joined in the Corporation at Respondent No.3 on 17.07.1984 and died on 02.04.2004 while in service. The Corporation had established a scheme known as HPCL Employees‟ Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme w.e.f. 30.05.1988 for the benefit of the employees at the time of their superannuation. It is further stated that, as per Clause 7 (b) (ii) of the said scheme, there was a provision that upon the death of an employee while in service, his dependant family members could opt for the employment which was subject to the recruitment rules and criteria of Respondents Corporation at entry level vacancy and also it was subject to availability of vacancies. The copy of the scheme is filed along with the counter. c. It is submitted that, because of the modernization, Respondents Corporation has got overall surplus manpower on All India basis. To address the said issue, the Corporation has introduced earlier retirement scheme vide Circular dated 24.07.2000 and it was extended thereafter. Due to non-availability of vacancies, Respondents Corporation was not in a position to provide employment to the dependant family members of the deceased employees as per the provisions of said SBFS Scheme. Accordingly, the scheme which was in vogue w.e.f 30.05.1988 was substituted by the provisions of deed of variation dated 23.01.2013. As per Clause 7 of the Deed of Variation, dated 23.01.2013, the option of employment to spouse / dependant as envisaged under Clause 7(b)(ii) of the old scheme stands discontinued. In view of the modification in the scheme, there is no provision in SBFS Scheme to provide employment on 5 compassionate grounds. Therefore, Petitioner No.2 is not entitled to get the employment into the services of the Corporation on compassionate grounds. d. It is further submitted that the Hon‟ble Apex Court in an identical matter in State Bank of India and another v. Raj Kumar2 held that mere fact that application for compassionate was made when old scheme was in force, will not entitle to be considered for compassionate appointment, when the said scheme was abolished. It is further stated that Petitioner No.2 in the instant case has been seeking compassionate appointment as a right without appreciating that there is no such scheme or policy which enables him to claim such employment. It is stated that, after the death of her husband, Petitioner No.1 had made an application by opting Clause 7 (b) (ii). As per the said option, she was eligible to receive 100% payment of the last drawn salary of the deceased for a period of three years from the date of his death i.e., till 01.04.2007, however, the Trust extended her benefit till notional date of retirement of the deceased employee. e. It is further submitted that, a mail has been sent to Petitioner No.1 informing her that the monthly benefit will be stopped on attaining the notional date of retirement of the deceased employee and requested her to submit the form for purchase of annuity on 01.04.2018, but she did not choose to submit the form. The deposit of Rs.8,55,901/- has been refunded to the Bank Account of Petitioner No.1 on 18.04.2018. Petitioner No.1 has not responded even to the communication dated 15.01.2019 for the purchase of the annuity under the scheme. 2 2010 I CLR 1027 6 4. In the reply filed by the Petitioners it is submitted that having introduced the scheme in the year 2004, when the Petitioners have opted the same and it was accepted by Respondents, now at this length of time, they cannot turn back and say that at present no such scheme is available. In fact, the Petitioners have opted the scheme when it was in force. Petitioners have right to ask for job on compassionate grounds. Respondents Corporation issued employment notifications and recruited the persons. Respondents Corporation is kind enough in getting the scheme in the year 1988 and by giving 100% of last drawn salary, but that cannot be a ground to deny the job. They have to provide the job within three years as per the scheme. Petitioners, pursuant to the mail received from Respondents, approached them personally, begged them literally to provide job by duly bringing to their notice about their pathetic live they are leading. But, they would inform that Respondents were pursuing the matter with the Higher Authorities to consider the case of the Petitioners. The refund of the amount without any interest by transferring the same to the bank account of Petitioner No.1 is not within their knowledge. 5. It is further submitted that Petitioner No.2 is well qualified and suitable to the technical post as he has done Masters in Computer Applications and completed Bachelor Degree in Science. Respondents Corporation should have provided the employment on compassionate grounds when the notification which was published for recruitment for technical post of Technical Valve Operator, Fire and Safety Engineer. Because some amendment came to the scheme, Respondents cannot deny the job as the said amendment will not apply retrospectively. It is submitted that Respondents Corporation abruptly stopped 7 payment of pension to Petitioner No.1 without providing employment to Petitioner No.2 on compassionate grounds. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that Respondents Corporation accepted the option which was taken by the Petitioners and accordingly paid last drawn salary of the deceased husband of Petitioner No.1 till 01.04.2018. Learned counsel further submits that, despite having accepted the option of the Petitioners under Clause 7(b) (ii) / 8-A of the scheme, Respondents Corporation failed to provide employment to Petitioner No.2, who is the son of the deceased as provided under SBFS Scheme. It is further argued that Respondents, contrary to the Rules of the Scheme, on the date of death of the deceased or the date of nomination for employment of Petitioner No.2, denied the employment after withholding the application since 2004. 7. Learned counsel further submits that the Respondents Corporation on one hand complying the provisions of option under Clause 7 (b) (ii) under the scheme retained the money which has been deposited i.e., the death benefits of the deceased, in the Trust, but on the other hand, it is declining to provide employment to the family member of the deceased employee, under the scheme, which his not tenable under law. It is further argued that Respondents Corporation failed to give any reasonable cause for refusing the right of Petitioner No.2 which is guaranteed under the scheme as per Clause 7 (b) (ii) 8. Learned counsel would submit that the denial of employment to Petitioner No.2 was quite contrary to the Rule since the scheme was discontinued regarding the compassionate appointment in the year 2013, but till such time the 8 scheme was well in force, which is in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits that the application of the individual was not rejected and simply they kept the application alive, as such, there was no delay on the part of the Petitioners in approaching the Court. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Secretary to Government Department of Education (Primary) and Others Vs. Bheemesh @ Bheemappa3, wherein, at Para No.20 it was held as under: “Coming to the case on hand, the employee died on 08.12.2010 and the amendment to the Rules was proposed by way of a draft notification on 20.06.2012. The final notification was issued on 11.07.2012. Merely because the application for appointment was taken up for consideration after the issue of the amendment, the respondent could not have sought the benefit of the amendment. The Judgment of the Divisional Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Akkamahadevamma on which the Tribunal as well as the High Court placed reliance, was not applicable to the case of compassionate appointments, as the amendment in Akkamahadevamma came as a result of the existing rule being declared to be ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.” (emphasis supplied) 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Canara Bank and another v. M.Mahesh Kumar4, wherein, at Para No.17 it was held as follows: “Considering the scope of the Scheme „Dying in Harness Scheme 1993‟ then in force and the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court rightly directed the appellant-bank to reconsider the claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment in accordance with law and as per the Scheme (1993) then in existence. We do not find any reason warranting interference.” 3 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1264 4 2015 LF (SC) 514 9 (emphasis supplied) 10. Contrasting the same, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents would submit that Petitioner No.1 has already been given all the benefits as opted by her and the present petition has been filed with enormous delay as an after-thought since the pension was stopped as the date of notional superannuation of the deceased employee was expired by April, 2018. Learned counsel would submit that Petitioner No.1 had submitted the option letter in May, 2004 to the Corporation opting Rule 7 (b) (ii) / 8-A i.e., 100% benefit till the employment is given under the said scheme. Learned counsel would further submit that, coming to the case of Petitioner No.2 for compassionate appointment in terms of the settlement, Respondents Corporation has withdrawn the scheme of providing employment on compassionate grounds in the year 2007. Learned counsel further submits that Respondents Corporation has no such scheme to provide employment to the spouse or the dependant family member on compassionate grounds on the death of an employee while in service. It is submitted that, just by opting for the appointment under compassionate grounds under SBFS Scheme which was the result of settlement between the Management and All India Unions, Petitioner No.2 has no vested right to claim such benefit in the present case since said Clause was impliedly superseded. 11. To buttress their contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.17 of 2017, wherein, it was held as follows: “08. A Full Bench of this Court in P.V. Narayana Vs. APSRTC, Hyderabad 1 has laid some guidelines by summarising thus: 10 (1) Though no period of limitation is prescribed for the writ Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or to file a writ petition, a person aggrieved should approach the Court without loss of time. In appropriate cases, where there is delay and the same has properly been explained with cogent reasons, Court may condone the delay as an exception to meet the ends of justice. But, it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. (2) Courts have evolved rules of self-imposed restraints or fetters where the High Court may hot enquire into belated or stale claim and deny relief to a party if he is found guilty of laches. One who is tardy, not vigilant and does not seek intervention of the Court within a reasonable time from the date of accrual of cause of action or alleged violation of the constitutional, legal or other right, is not entitled to relief under Article. (3) No hard and fast rule can be laid down for universal application and every case shall have to be decided on its own facts. (4) There is no inviolable rule of law that whenever there is a delay, the Court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition; it is a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion, and each case must be dealt with on its own facts. (5) There is no lower limit or upper limit and it will all depend on what the breach of the fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and how the delay arose. (6) The principle on which the Court refuses relief on the ground of laches or delay is that the rights accrued to others by the delay in filing the petition should not be disturbed, unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay, because Court should not harm innocent parties if their rights had emerged by the delay on the part of the petitioners. 11 (7) Where there is remiss or negligence on the part of a party approaching the Court for relief after an inordinate and unexplained delay, in such cases, it would not be proper to enforce the fundamental right As a general rule if there has been unreasonable delay the Court ought not ordinarily to lend its aid to a party in exercise of the extraordinary power of mandamus. (8) There is no waiver of fundamental right. But while exercising discretionary jurisdiction Court can take into account delay and laches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ Court. (9) Though the High Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 in its discretion grant relief in cases where the fundamental rights are violated, but, in such cases also, High Court, to meet the ends of justice, shall refuse to exercise its high prerogative jurisdiction in favour of a party who has been guilty of laches and where there are other relevant circumstances which indicate that it would be inappropriate to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction. (10) The maximum period fixed by the Legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a civil Court must be brought may ordinarily taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Article 226 can be measured. (11) If a person entitled to a relief chooses to remain silent for long, he thereby gives rise to a reasonable belief in the mind of others that he is not interested in claiming that relief. Courts have applied the rule of delay with greater rigor in service matters. (12) The benefit of a judgment cannot be extended to a case automatically. The Court is entitled to take into consideration the fact as to whether the petitioner had chosen to sit over the matter and wake up after the decision of the Court If it is found that the petitioner approached the Court with unreasonable delay, the same may disentitle him to obtain a discretionary relief. Long Delay disentitles a party to the discretionary relief under Articles 32 and 226 and persons who had slept over their rights for long and 12 elected to wake up when they had the impetus from the judgment of similarly placed persons. (13) Where during the intervening period rights of third parties have crystallized, it would be inequitable to disturb those rights at the instance of a person who has approached the Court after long lapse of time and where there is no cogent explanation for the delay. (14) Where the appellate authority acting within its jurisdiction condoned the delay after being satisfied with the facts stated in relation thereto, the High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution should not ordinarily interfere with the order.” (emphasis supplied) 12. Learned counsel for Respondents further has placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court Delhi in Manju Devi Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited5, wherein, it was held as follows: “27. The whole object behind granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. Appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependant of a deceased employee is an exception to the said rule. It is a concession and not a right. The petitioner had availed the monetary benefits, under the scheme opted by her, to the tune of Rs. 58 lakhs. Having received such benefits, the family of the deceased service man would have survived and revived from the crisis that took upon them by surprise. After the effects of such crisis mitigated by the reason of her opting the scheme under Rule 7(b)(ii)/8A, the petitioner did not have the entitlement to approach under the Scheme of compassionate employment since the very purpose of the scheme was surpassed. 29. In light of the arguments advanced, material perused as well as the fact that the respondent has withdrawn the scheme under which the petitioner is seeking benefit and that she, with her own free will, chose to avail benefits of another scheme, by which she has received a sum of over Rs. 58 lakhs, this 5 W.P.(C) 5538/2015, dated 14.07.2022 13 Court does not find any cogent reason or ground to allow the instant petition and grant the relief as prayed for by the petitioner. The Respondent Corporation after computation has already paid the petitioner Rs. 58,88,990/-, including last drawn salary from May 2008 to January 2014, EPF, Gratuity, Annuity, Pension GPAI etc., and no further benefit remains to be reaped by the petitioner from the Respondent Corporation.” (emphasis supplied) 13. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in The State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari and others etc.6, wherein, it was held as under: “7.1. It may be apposite to refer to the following decisions of this Court, on the rationale behind a policy or scheme for compassionate appointment and the considerations that ought to guide determination of claims for compassionate appointment. i. In Sushma Gosain vs. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 468, this Court observed that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. That the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate grounds is to mitigate the hardship caused due to the death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. ii. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, this Court observed that the object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family of a deceased government employee to tide over the sudden crisis by providing gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who is eligible for such employment. That mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood; the Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and it is only if it is satisfied that, but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family, provided a scheme or rules provide for the same. This Court further clarified in the said case that compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time after the death of a government servant. That the object being to enable the family to get over the financial 6 Civil Appeal Nos.8842-8855 of 2022, dated 03.03.2023 14 crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after lapse of considerable amount of time and after the crisis is overcome. iii. In Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85, (“Hakim Singh”) this Court placed much emphasis on the need for immediacy in the manner in which claims for compassionate appointment are made by the dependants and decided by the concerned authority. This Court cautioned that it should not be forgotten that the object of compassionate appointment is to give succour to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis that has befallen the dependants on account of the untimely demise of its sole earning member. Therefore, this Court held that it would not be justified in directing appointment for the claimants therein on compassionate grounds, fourteen years after the death of the government employee. That such a direction would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession. iv. This Court in State of Haryana vs. Ankur Gupta, AIR 2003 SC 3797 held that in order for a claim for compassionate appointment to be considered reasonable and permissible, it must be shown that a sudden crisis occurred in the family of the deceased as a result of death of an employee who had served the State and died while in service. It was further observed that appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right and cannot be made available to all types of posts irrespective of the nature of service rendered by the deceased employee. v. There is a consistent line of authority of this Court on the principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is given only for meeting the immediate unexpected hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner vide Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301. When an appointment is made on compassionate grounds, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion, vide I.G. (Karmik) vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, (2007) 6 SCC 162. In the same vein is the decision of this Court in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384, wherein it was declared that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment, but a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis. vi. In State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, AIR 2006 SC 2743, the facts before this Court were that the government employee (father of the applicant therein) died in March, 1987. The application was 15 made by the applicant after four and half years in September, 1991 which was rejected in March, 1996. The writ petition was filed in June, 1999 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in July, 2000. When the Division Bench decided the matter, more than fifteen years had passed from the date of death of the father of the applicant. This Court remarked that the said facts were relevant and material as they would demonstrate that the family survived in spite of death of the employee. Therefore, this Court held that granting compassionate appointment after a lapse of a considerable amount of time after the death of the government employee, would not be in furtherance of the object of a scheme for compassionate appointment. vii. In Shashi Kumar, this Court speaking through Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. (as His Lordship then was) observed that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule that appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles which accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. That the basis of the policy is that it recognizes that a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service. That it is the immediacy of the need which furnishes the basis for the State to allow the benefit of compassionate appointment. The pertinent observations of this Court have been extracted as under: “41. Insofar as the individual facts pertaining to the Respondent are concerned, it has emerged from the record that the Writ Petition before the High Court was instituted on 11 May 2015. The application for compassionate appointment was submitted on 8 May 2007. On 15 January 2008 the Additional Secretary had required that the amount realized by way of pension be included in the income statement of the family. The Respondent waited thereafter for a period in excess of seven years to move a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra), this Court has emphasized that the basis of a scheme of compassionate appointment lies in the need of providing immediate assistance to the family of the deceased employee. This sense of immediacy is evidently lost by the delay on the part of the dependant in seeking compassionate appointment.” (emphasis supplied) 16 14. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.1093 of 2003, dt.23.08.2023, wherein, it was held as follows: 19. In Sajad Ahmed Mir (supra), the Hon‟ble Apex Court held as under: “11. We may also observe that when the Division Bench of the High Court was considering the case of the applicant holding that he had sought 'compassion', the Bench ought to have considered the larger issue as well and it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of sole bread earner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the set back. Once it is proved that in spite of death of bread earner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say 'goodbye' to normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. 12. In State of Haryana and Ors. v. Rani Devi and Anr. [(1996) 5 SCC 308 : AIR 1996 SC 2445], it was held that the claim of applicant for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premise that he was dependant on the deceased-employee. Strictly this claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution. However, such claim is considered reasonable as also allowable on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of the employee who had served the State and died while in service. That is why it is necessary for the authorities to frame rules, regulations or to issue such administrative instructions which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 13. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar (Mrs.) & Anr. [(1994) 2 SCC 718], it was indicated that High Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction 17 impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and contemplate such appointments. 14. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors. [(1994) 4 SCC 138], it was ruled that public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and on merits. The appointment on compassionate ground cannot be a source of recruitment. It is merely an exception to the requirement of law keeping in view the fact of the death of employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases, the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. Such appointments on compassionate ground, therefore, have to be made in accordance with rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. This favorable treatment to the dependant of the deceased employee must have clear nexus with the object sought to be achieved thereby, i.e. relief against destitution. At the same time, however, it should not be forgotten that as against the destitute family of the deceased, there are millions and millions of other families which are equally, if not more, destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectation, and the change in the status and affairs of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment, which are suddenly upturned. In Smt. Sushma Gosain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(1989) 4 SCC 468], it was observed that in claims of appointment on compassionate grounds, there should be no delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. Recently, in Commissioner of Public Instructions & Ors. v. K.R. Vishwanath, [(2005) 7 SCC 206], one of us (Pasayat, J.) had an occasion to consider the above decisions and the principles laid down therein have been reiterated.” 20. In Somvir Singh (supra), the Hon‟ble Apex Court held as under: 18 “7. Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all its citizens equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Article 16(2) protects citizens against discrimination in respect of any employment or office under the State on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent. It is so well settled and needs no restatement at our ends that appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception carved out to the general rule that recruitment to public services is to be made in a transparent and accountable manner providing opportunity to all eligible persons to compete and participate in the selection process. Such appointments are required to be made on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. Dependants of employees died in harness do not have any special or additional claim to public services other than the one conferred, if any, by the employer. 8. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138 ] this Court held, \"As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interest of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.\" (emphasis added). 9. In Union Bank of India & Ors. Vs. M.T. Latheesh [(2006) 7 SCC 350], this Court while dealing with the 19 similar question observed that indiscriminate grant of employment on compassionate grounds would shut the door for employment to the ever-growing population of unemployed youth. 10. There is no dispute whatsoever that the appellant- Bank is required to consider the request for compassionate appointment only in accordance with the scheme framed by it and no discretion as such left with any of the authorities to make compassionate appointment de hors the scheme. In our considered opinion the claim for compassionate appointment and the right, if any, is traceable only to the scheme, executive instructions, rules etc. framed by the employer in the matter of providing employment on compassionate grounds. There is no right of whatsoever nature to claim compassionate appointment on any ground other than the one, if any, conferred by the employer by way of scheme or instructions as the case may be.” (emphasis supplied) 15. Learned counsel for Respondents would further submit that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed after a long gap and it cannot be granted after 14 years of the death of the employee. It is submitted that in the identical facts of the case, the High Court of Delhi for the same Corporation on similar issue dismissed the Writ Petition by placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioners could have filed the Writ Petition in the year 2007 itself, but they approached the Court in the year 2018. The Corporation has paid the monthly pension to Petitioner No.1 till the date of notional superannuation of the deceased employee and the Rules are amended in the year 2013. 16. In reply, learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that 73 applications are pending before the Respondents Corporation for the period from 2004 to 2013 and the compensation was paid to some applicants, whereas, 20 Petitioner No.2 has been pursuing the matter with Respondent No.3 from time to time and as such, there is no delay on the part of the Petitioners in approaching the Court. Petitioner never waived their right to have the employment on compassionate grounds. Their application was not rejected by Respondents Corporation. Learned counsel would submit that the Petitioner No.2 has applied in the notification which was issued in the year 2010, but he was not provided with employment. He has also applied for the post in the notification of 2015 which was not decided so far. Learned counsel finally submits that Petitioners opted Clause 7 (b) (ii) but the Respondents changed the said option to Clause 7 (b)(i) without their knowledge. Hence, prays to allow the petition. 17. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both parties and on perusal of the material on record, the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether Petitioner No.2 is entitled to have employment under compassionate grounds as he has opted the same under SBFS Scheme? POINT: 18. Before going to discuss the merits of the point referred to supra, it is beneficial to extract Clause (7) of HPCL Employees‟ Superannuation Benefit Funds Scheme, which reads as under: \"7. Benefits on death while in service: (a) On death of a member while in service, the beneficiary will be entitled to benefit at the maximum rate of 40% of last drawn salary of the member as if the deceased member had not died but had superannuated with 32 years of reckonable service; the benefit being payable from the month following the date of the death of the member for 15 years certain or the lifetime of the beneficiary whichever is later. If the beneficiary dies within the said period of 21 15 years certain mentioned above, the benefit will be payable to the nominee of the beneficiary till the completion of the said period of 15 years. (b) On the death of a married member while in service the beneficiary or if there are more beneficiaries than one, all the beneficiaries together * if none of the beneficiaries shall be in the employment of the Corporation and if the beneficiary or all the beneficiaries so nominated shall also be the beneficiary/beneficiaries nominated by the member to receive benefits of the Provident Fund, Gratuity, Leave Encashment and payments under Group Insurance Scheme may, as an alternative to sub-rule (a) above and not later than 180 days of the death of the member, exercise in writing irrevocably any one of the following options: (i) to receive an amount equal to the last drawn salary of the deceased member from the month following the date of the death of the member till the notional date (as hereinafter defined) upon the beneficiary making over to the Corporation as being entitled to do so the following payments due to the deceased member at the date of his death, viz. (aa) the full Provident Fund standing to the credit of the deceased employee; (bb) the full Gratuity due to the deceased employee; (cc) all payments on account of Leave Encashment standing to the credit of the deceased employee; (dd) all payments under the Group Insurance Scheme, with instructions to the Corporation. (ee) to hold the same on Fixed Deposit; (ff) to transfer to the Superannuation Benefit Fund the net amount of all interest accruing from time to time on the fixed deposit until the notional date after deducting at source Income-tax as applicable on such interest and deposit such tax in Government Treasury; (gg) to hand over to the beneficiary the full corpus (without interest) standing in the Fixed Deposit Account on the notional date; and upon the beneficiary/all, the beneficiaries consenting to the Corporation making over to the Trustees any other payment which under the Corporation policy is payable by reason of the death of the employee. Thereafter on and from the notional date the Trustees shall pay to the beneficiary benefit as it the deceased member had not died but has superannuated based upon his actual years of reckonable service, such benefit being payable for fifteen years certain or for the lifetime of the beneficiary, whichever is later, If the beneficiary dies within the said period of fifteen years 22 certain, the benefits will be payable to be nominee of the beneficiary till the completion of the said period of fifteen years. (ii) Opting for employment in the Corporation of Eligible, dependent spouse/son/daughter of the deceased member fulfilling the required recruitment criteria at the entry level vacancy, sub employment to be provided by the Corporation within 3 years from the date of such option being exercised and to receive benefit under the Scheme as if the deceased member had not died but had superannuated, based upon his actual years of reckonable service, such benefits being payable from the month following the date of the death of the member for fifteen years certain or the lifetime of the beneficiary whichever is later, If the beneficiary dies within the said period of fifteen years certain, the benefit will be payable to the nominee of the beneficiary till the completion of the said period of fifteen years. c) On the death of a married member while in service, no benefit shall be paid/made over to the beneficiary/ beneficiaries until the beneficiary or if there are more beneficiaries than one beneficiary, all the beneficiaries shall have tint irrevocably exercised in writing the option mentioned in sub- rule (a) & (b) above PROVIDED HOWEVER that upon the exercise of such option the benefits shall be paid but without interest/made available to the beneficiary/beneficiaries as if the option had been exercised on the date of the death of the deceased member PROVIDED FURTHER that if the beneficiary /all the beneficiaries shall not exercise such option in writing within 180 days of the date of the death of the married member, the beneficiary/beneficiaries shall be deemed to have irrevocably opted for the benefits mentioned in sub-rule (a) above. (d) The notional date referred to in this rule shall mean the date on which the deceased employee would have superannuated if his earlier death had not intervened. (e) For the purpose of this rule the provisions of sub- rule (b) of Rule (6) shall not apply. 8. (A) At the time of death of an employee, not having an employable dependent member, the beneficiary will be permitted to exercise option as provided in Rule-7(b) and in the event employment is provided to dependent member subsequently, the provisions of Rule-7(b) will cease to operate and the beneficiary will be governed by Rule- 7(2).\" 23 19. In the present case, Petitioner No.2 is seeking compassionate appointment under Clause 7 (b) (ii) / 8-A of the Scheme. There is no dispute about the fact that Petitioner No.1 sought the benefits of the Scheme in May, 2004 after the death of her husband. However, the Scheme was withdrawn and was discontinued by the Respondents in the year 2007. It is also not in dispute that Respondents Corporation had been paying the last drawn salary of the deceased employee from the date of his death till the notional date of superannuation of the deceased i.e., till April, 2018. 20. A fair look at the option exercised by the Petitioners under Clause 7 (b) (ii), in case of opting for employment in the Corporation, the eligible dependant of the deceased member for the entry level vacancy fulfilling the required recruitment criteria, such employment is to be provided by the Corporation within three years from the date of such option and to receive the benefit under the Scheme as if the deceased member had not died but had superannuated based upon his reckonable service the benefit being payable from the month following the date of the death of the member for 15 years certain or the lifetime of the beneficiary whichever is later. In case of death of the beneficiary within 15 years, benefits shall be payable to the nominee of the beneficiary till the completion of 15 years. Whereas, coming to Clause 7 (b) (i), the payment of an amount equivalent to the last drawn salary of the deceased member from the month following the date of the death of the member till the notional date and also the payments due to the deceased member at the time of his death like full provident fund and gratuity etc. 21. In the present case, Petitioner No.1 has received the last drawn salary of her deceased husband till April, 2018 and a letter has been addressed to her to 24 submit the forms for purchase of the annuity. In case of providing employment, Petitioners would have received the last drawn salary till the date of said employment. But, the fact remains, the option for the employment is subject to the recruitment rules and criteria of the Corporation for the entry level vacancy and subject to availability of vacancies. Payment of 100% of last drawn salary is till the employment is given upon depositing PF / EPF, Gratuity etc with the Trust. There is no dispute about the fact that Petitioner No.1 has deposited the death benefits of her husband which were received by her while opting Clause 7 (b) (ii) of the Scheme. 22. It is pertinent to note that, Petitioner No.2 contends that there is no delay on their part and they have been pursuing the matter with the Respondents Corporation since the death of his father. As per the said Clause, the payment of 100% of the last drawn salary is till the employment is given and such employment has to be provided within three years from the date of death of the employee. In the present case, three years expired by April, 2007. Petitioners herein had been receiving the last drawn salary of the deceased employee even after three years. They could have approached the Court seeking such employment immediately thereafter. That was not done in the present case. The Scheme has been modified vide deed of variation dt.23.01.2013 and Clause 7 (b) (ii) of the Scheme stands discontinued and the same was informed to Petitioner No.1 by Respondents Corporation through a letter dated 15.01.2019. For ready reference, the relevant paras of the said letter are extracted hereunder: “We wish to inform you that “HPCL Employees‟ Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme” which was in vogue with effect from 30/05/1988, has been modified and substituted by the provisions 25 of “Deed of Variation” dated 23/01/2013. As per clause 7 of the Deed of Variation dated 23/01/2013, option of employment to spouse / dependent as envisaged under the clause No.7(b)(ii) of the Scheme stands discontinued. It is submitted that as per the option exercised by you under clause 7(b)(ii), you were eligible to receive the 100% payment of the last drawn salary of Late Shri B.Ramachandra Rao for a period of 3 years from the date of his death i.e., from 02/04/2004 to 01//04/2007 and there was no provision to continue to pay 100% last drawn salary under the said option beyond 3 years. However, the SBFS Trust has extended you the benefit of 100% last drawn salary beyond the stipulated period of 3 years till date in accordance with clause 7(i) i.e., 100% benefit of last drawn salary till notional date of retirement of the deceased employee.” 23. The whole object behind granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. Appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependant of a deceased employee is an exception to the said rule. It is a concession and not a right. It has been held in catena of cases that employment under compassionate grounds, is not automatic and is dependent on the governing rules and regulations. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, this Court cannot rewrite the governing policy. Further, employment on compassionate grounds has to be provided to Petitioner No.2 within three years from the date of death of his father and the said three years was expired by April, 2007. Petitioners ought to have approached the Court immediately thereafter, but they did not do so. Furthermore, Respondents Corporation informed Petitioner No.1 through a letter that the SBFS Scheme has been modified and the option of employment to spouse / dependent as envisaged under the clause 26 No.7(b)(ii) of the Scheme stands discontinued. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any cogent reason or ground to allow the present petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 24. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date:01.08.2024 L.R.Copy to be marked Dinesh 27 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.7548 of 2018 Dt.01.08.2024 Dinesh 28 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 7548/2018 Between: 1. BARRI LAKSHMI, W/O LATE RAMACHANDRA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O D.NO.57-3- 1/1,DURGA NAGAR, KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM 2. BARI CHANDRA SAKHAR, S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA RAO, HINDU, AGED 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O R/O D.NO.57-3- 1/1,DURGA NAGAR, KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, PETROLEUM CORPORATION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS PRL.SECRETARY, NEW DELHI 2. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD, REP. BY ITS HR MANAGER, THE PETROLEUM HOUSE, 17, JASHEDJI, TATA ROAD, MURNBNI- 400 020 3. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD, (VISAKHA REFINERY) REP.BY ITS HR MANAGER, PB NO.15, MALKAPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 01.08.2024 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes/No 3. Whether Her Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 29 * THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA + WRIT PETITION NO: 7548/2018 % 01.08.2024 Between: 1. BARRI LAKSHMI, W/O LATE RAMACHANDRA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O D.NO.57-3- 1/1,DURGA NAGAR, KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM 2. BARI CHANDRA SAKHAR, S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA RAO, HINDU, AGED 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O R/O D.NO.57-3- 1/1,DURGA NAGAR, KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, PETROLEUM CORPORATION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS PRL.SECRETARY, NEW DELHI 2. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD, REP. BY ITS HR MANAGER, THE PETROLEUM HOUSE, 17, JASHEDJI, TATA ROAD, MURNBNI- 400 020 3. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD, (VISAKHA REFINERY) REP.BY ITS HR MANAGER, PB NO.15, MALKAPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): ! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri A.S.C.Bose ^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri Y.V.Anil Kumar for R.1 Sri T.Srinivas & Ms.A.V.S.Laxmi for R.2 & R.3 < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. 2010 I CLR 102 2. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1264 3. 2015 LF (SC) 514 4. W.P.(C) 5538/2015, dated 14.07.2022 5. Civil Appeal Nos.8842-8855 of 2022, dated 03.03.2023 This Court made the following: "