Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Salla Divya Veera Brahmam vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 February, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
WRIT PETITION No.27500 of 2023
Between:
SALLA DIVYA VEERA BRAHMAM, S/O LATE S. VEERANNA, AGED
ABOUT 22 YEARS, UNEMPLOYEE, R/O VEERA BRAHMENDRA
NAGAR, B.MATTAM MANDAL, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH.
...PETITIONER
AND
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH, MEDICAL AND FAMILY
WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, AMARAVATHI,
GUNTUR DISTRICT AND 4 OTHERS.
...RESPONDENTS.
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 28.02.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the order? : Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of order may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the order? : Yes/No
___________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Page 2 of 15
* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
+ WRIT PETITION No.27500 of 2023
% 28.02.2025
WRIT PETITION No.27500 of 2023
Between:
SALLA DIVYA VEERA BRAHMAM, S/O LATE S. VEERANNA, AGED
ABOUT 22 YEARS, UNEMPLOYEE, R/O VEERA BRAHMENDRA
NAGAR, B.MATTAM MANDAL, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH.
...PETITIONER.
AND
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH, MEDICAL AND FAMILY
WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, AMARAVATHI,
GUNTUR DISTRICT AND 4 OTHERS.
...RESPONDENTS.
! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri Dasari S.V.V.S.V.Prasad
^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri Sarath, AGP for Services
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1) (1978) 4 SCC 47
2) (1987) 4 SCC 203
3) (1985) 4 SCC 71
4) (1981) 2 SCC 238
5) (2021) 6 SCC 512
6) (2020) 14 SCC 126
This Court made the following:
Page 3 of 15
APHC010532392023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 27500/2023
Between:
Salla Divya Veera Brahmam ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. DASARI S V V S V PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES III
The Court made the following:
ORDER
The above Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the
respondents in not extending the benefit of the Government Memo
No.23232/R&R-A2/2015-1, dated 26.08.2015 for inclusion of petitioner‟s
name, being legal heir in the place of his father‟s name at S.No.69, while
extending the similar benefit to others vide Government Memo
No.ICD01/1238/2019-RR (C.No.1036703), dated 28.11.2019 and
Page 4 of 15
providing employment as per G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986, as illegal
and arbitrary.
2. Averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that the ancestral property
of the petitioner was acquired for the construction of Sri Pothuluri Veera
Brahmendra Swamy Reservoir of Telugu Ganga Project. The Land
Acquisition Officer passed an award and the petitioner’s family was
displaced and relocated. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.98
Irrigation (Proj. Wing) Department dated 15.04.1986 for rehabilitation and
providing employment to the displaced person or their dependents. The
then District Selection Committee scrutinized the particulars of the
petitioner‟s father and incorporated his name in the list dated 24.10.2016
at Sl.No.69. The petitioner‟s father died on 19.04.2018 in a road accident.
Thereafter the petitioner as well as his mother made representation to
include the petitioner‟s name in the place of his father‟s name at S.No.69
and to provide any suitable employment. The respondents, in fact,
considered the similar requests of legal heirs in respect of other persons,
however the same was not extended to the petitioner. Hence, the writ
petition.
3. a) A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 4th respondent. It was
contended, interalia, that the name of the petitioner‟s father S.Veeranna,
S/o Bala Veeraiah was included in the seniority list of SPVBR of Telugu
Ganga Project at S.No.69 based on the approval of the District Selection
Committee on 25.08.2010 and the petitioner‟s father was not provided
any employment. It was pleaded that the representation of the petitioner
dated 11.12.2018 was not received.
b) As per Para 4 (ii) of G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986, the
candidates eligible for appointment under the scheme shall be displaced
Page 5 of 15
persons or his/her son, daughter or spouse, there being no other earning
member in the family.
c) The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.45 Irrigation & C.A.D.
(PW:R&R-A2) Department dated 04.07.2012, wherein it was mentioned
that all the eligible displaced persons or their spouse/son/daughter as per
the provision already available at Para No.1 of G.O.Ms.No.98 Irrigation
(Proj. Wing) Department dated 15.04.1986, whose applications were
received within the specified time limit but could not be provided
employment so far, due to administrative reasons, may be considered for
employment as per seniority subject to fulfilling all other eligibility criteria
prescribed for that category of job. This benefit shall not be extended to
those displaced families who have already got employment under this
scheme.
d) The Government issued Memo No.3750/R&R/A2/2015-1, dated
16.05.2015 rejecting the claim of inclusion of the name of the spouse
K.Sireesha, in the place of her deceased husband (being daughter-in-law
of original awardee). Later as per the orders, the Government issued
Memo No.23232/R&R-A2/2015-1, dated 26.08.2015, and accorded
permission on humanitarian grounds for the inclusion of her name in the
seniority list.
e) The Government issued Memo No.ICDOI/1238/2019-RR
(C.No.1036703) dated 28.11.2019 and accorded permission to
substitute/include 10 numbers of displaced persons in the existing
seniority list. Out of 10 numbers, all 9 displaced persons are
sons/daughters of original awardees and the 10th person is the daughter-
in-law of original awardee, whose spouse was deceased.
Page 6 of 15
f) The Government on humanitarian grounds accorded permission
to the daughters-in-law of original awardees for substitution/inclusion of
their names in the seniority list in the event of the death of a spouse, but
not to the grandson of the original awardee. The inclusion of the
petitioner‟s name, being the grandson of the original awardee is not
feasible in terms of Para No.4 (ii) of G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986 and
eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Heard Sri T.Harsha Sai Pavan, learned counsel representing Sri
Dasari S.V.V.S.V.Prasad, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Sarath,
learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services for respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Services for respondents, reiterated the
contentions as per the averments in the affidavit and counter affidavit
respectively.
CONSIDERATION:
6. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.676, Irrigation & Power
Department, dated 17.11.1978 indicating preference in recruitment to
posts equivalent to L.D.C. (now Junior Assistant), Typists and cadres
below, in the projects, should be given to the eligible displaced persons
or their dependants i.e. son/daughter/spouse, whose names are
furnished by the respective Collectors. The Collectors were requested to
draw a list of those eligible displaced persons for the above jobs in the
Projects and forward it to the Project authorities for making appointments
to the categories indicated above by following the Rule of Reservation. It
was further directed to send a copy of the list to the employment
exchange covering the project area.
Page 7 of 15
7. Be that as if may, the then Chief Engineer, SRSP by letter dated
05.08.1983 and brought to the notice of the Government that the
candidates appointed in the projects as per G.O.Ms.No.676 dated
17.11.1978 have to be replaced by the regular candidates allotted by the
Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC).
8. Considering the scenario, after a careful examination of proposals,
in consultation with APPSC, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.98 dated
15.04.1986 in supersession of G.O.Ms.No.676 dated 17.11.1978. It was
ordered that –
(i) not more than 50% of vacancies in the categories equivalent to
Junior Assistants/Typists and cadres below arising in Major and
Medium Irrigation projects shall be filled by the displaced persons
or their dependants of respective project duly following rule of
reservation for various categories i.e. SC/ST/BC/Ex-
servicemen/Physically Handicapped/Meritorious Sportsmen etc.
(ii) The candidates eligible for appointment under this scheme shall
be displaced persons or his/her son, daughter or spouse, there
being no other earning member in the family.
(iii) Applications for appointment from the eligible candidates shall be
made to the District Collector concerned within a period of one
year from the date of actual displacement of the family.
Preference shall be given with reference to the date of
displacement and to those applicants whose house and lands
are acquired against those whose lands or house only is
acquired. The District Collector is directed to draw up the list of
such applications and forward the same to the Project authorities
for appointment.
(iv) All the appointments made in this scheme are temporary.
However, the services of these employees will be regularized in
Page 8 of 15
the categories of posts, whose pay is equal or less than that of
Junior Assistants.
(v) The temporary appointment of the persons employed under this
scheme can be considered for regular appointment without
subjecting them to normal process of recruitment rules, provided
they satisfy other conditions of recruitment prescribed in the
rules, such as age and qualifications etc. However, a formal
notification may be made to the employment exchange and after
filling up the vacancy, the appointing authority will furnish all
relevant particulars of the candidates, the employment exchange
covering the area.
(vi) The regular appointment made under this scheme should be
kept outside the purpose of A.P. Public Service Commission.
9. The Government also issued G.O.Ms.No.45 dated 04.07.2012
clarifying certain aspects.
10. It is an undisputed fact that the name of the petitioner‟s father was
included at S.No.69 based on approval of the District Selection
Committee dated 25.08.2010. It is also an undisputed fact that the
petitioner‟s father was not provided with any employment and he died on
19.04.2018. No doubt, Para 4 (ii) of G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986
prescribes that the candidates eligible for appointment under the scheme
shall be displaced a person or his/her son, daughter or spouse, there
being no other earning member in the family. It is also a fact that the
Government issued Memo No.4346/R&R-A2/2011-2 dated 11.07.2012 to
include the name of a grandchild of the awardee on the ground that the
father of the person whose name was included was not provided with any
employment. In fact, one P.Lavanyachari, S/o P.Upendrachari, got
employment under the displaced person‟s quota on the request of his
Page 9 of 15
father, as Junior Assistant, since his father crossed 52 years of age and
suffering from ill-health vide Government Memo No.19602/R&R-A2/2013-
1, dated 12.09.2013.
11. In the case at hand, the name of the petitioner‟s father was shown
at S.No.69 as per the approval of the District Selection Committee dated
25.08.2010 and the father of the petitioner died in April, 2018. Thus, it is
apparent that the petitioner‟s father was not provided with any
employment under the scheme though he was eligible before his death.
12. As seen from the language employed in G.O.Ms.No.98 dated
15.04.1986 and G.O.Ms.No.676 dated 17.11.1978, they were issued,
under Art 162 of the Constitution of India, to provide employment, being a
welfare measure, apart from paying compensation, to the family
members of the displaced family. Those government orders must be
treated as a social welfare policy. The object of the Government in
issuing G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986 should not be undermined or
given go-bye. G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986 was issued in
supersession of G.O.Ms.No.676 dated 17.11.1978, in pursuance of a
letter addressed by the then Chief Engineer, who, in turn, brought to the
notice of the Government that the candidates appointed in the projects
have to be replaced by the regular candidates allotted by the APPSC. In
that context, the Government examined the factual scenario and
provided jobs to the displaced persons or their dependants, on a regular
basis, and further kept such an appointment out of the purview of
APPSC, by reserving a certain percentage of posts in the projects for
displaced persons. The G.O.Ms.No.98 reserves not more than 50% of
vacancies.
Page 10 of 15
13. Thus, if one has to understand or appreciate the purpose or
intention of the Government, the language used in Clause (ii) that the
candidates eligible for appointment under this scheme shall be displaced
persons or his/her son, daughter or spouse, there being no other earning
member in the family, should be construed as son includes grandson,
daughter included granddaughter and spouse includes daughter-in-law.
Any other interpretation may defeat the very object or purpose of issuing
the said Government orders.
14. It is a settled law that while construing welfare legislature, liberal
construction should be adopted so that the purpose of legislation may be
allowed to be achieved, rather than frustrated or stultified.
15. In Moti Ram Vs. State of M.P.1, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held thus:
“23. A semantic smog overlays the provisions of bail in the Code and
prisoners’ rights, when cast in ambiguous language become precarious.
Where doubts arise the Gandhian talisman becomes a tool of
interpretation:
“Whenever you are in doubt. . . apply the following test. Recall the
face of the poorest and the weakest man whom you may have seen, and
ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him.”
Law, at the service of life, must respond interpretatively to raw realities and
make for liberties.”
16. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in International Ore & Fertilizers (India)
(P) Ltd. Vs. ESI Corpn.2, Held thus:
4. ………..We agree with the decision of the High Court that while
construing a welfare legislation like the Act and the notification issued1
(1978) 4 SCC 47
2
(1987) 4 SCC 203
Page 11 of 15thereunder a liberal construction should be placed on their provisions so
that the purpose of the legislation may be allowed to be achieved rather
than frustrated or stultified.
17. In Workmen Vs. American Express International Banking
Corpn.3, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held thus:
“4. The principles of statutory construction are well settled. Words
occurring in statutes of liberal import such as social welfare legislation and
human rights’ legislation are not to be put in Procrustean beds or shrunk to
Liliputian dimensions. In construing these legislations the imposture of
literal construction must be avoided and the prodigality of its misapplication
must be recognised and reduced. Judges ought to be more concerned
with the “colour”, the “content” and the “context” of such statutes (we have
borrowed the words from Lord Wilberforce’s opinion in Prenn v. Simmonds
[(1971) 3 All ER 237] ). In the same opinion Lord Wilberforce pointed out
that law is not to be left behind in some island of literal interpretation but is
to enquire beyond the language, unisolated from the matrix of facts in
which they are set; the law is not to be interpreted purely on internal
linguistic considerations. In one of the cases cited before us, that is,
Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court [(1980) 4 SCC 443 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 16 : (1981) 1 SCR
789] , we had occasion to say,“Semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of „bread and butter‟
statutes. Welfare statutes must, of necessity, receive a broad
interpretation. Where legislation is designed to give relief against certain
kinds of mischief, the Court is not to make inroads by making etymological
excursions.”
18. In LalappaLingappa Vs. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd.4, the
Hon‟ble Apex Court held thus:
3
(1985) 4 SCC 71
4
(1981) 2 SCC 238
Page 12 of 15“13. In construing a social welfare legislation, the court should adopt a
beneficent rule of construction; if a section is capable of two
constructions, that construction should be preferred which fulfils the
policy of the Act, and is more beneficial to the persons in whose interest
the Act has been passed. When, however, the language is plain and
unambiguous, as here, we must give effect to it whatever may be the
consequences, for, in that case, the words of the statute speak the
intention of the legislature. When the language is explicit, its
consequences are for the legislature and not for the courts to consider.
The argument of inconvenience and hardship is a dangerous one and is
only admissible in construction where the meaning of the statute is
obscure and there are two methods of construction. In their anxiety to
advance beneficent purpose of legislation, the courts must not yield to
the temptation of seeking ambiguity when there is none. [Craies on
Statutes, 6th Edn., pp. 84-91]”
19. In Brahampal Vs. National Insurance Co. 5 , the Hon‟ble Apex
Court held thus:
“7. The interpretation of a beneficial legislation must be remedial and
must be in furtherance with the purpose which the statute seeks to serve.
The aforesaid view has been reiterated by this Court on multiple occasions
wherein this Court has highlighted the importance acknowledging
legislative intention while interpreting the provisions of the statute. This
Court in Bombay Anand Bhavan Restaurant v. ESI Corpn. [Bombay Anand
Bhavan Restaurant v. ESI Corpn., (2009) 9 SCC 61 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S)
573] while interpreting the provisions of the Employees’ State Insurance
Act held that it being a beneficial legislation should receive a liberal
construction so as to promote its objectives. This Court held therein: (SCC
p. 66, para 20)
“20. The Employees’ State Insurance Act is a beneficial legislation. The
main purpose of the enactment as the Preamble suggests, is to provide for
5
(2021) 6 SCC 512
Page 13 of 15
certain benefits to employees of a factory in case of sickness, maternity
and employment injury and to make provision for certain other matters in
relation thereto. The Employees’ State Insurance Act is a social security
legislation and the canons of interpreting a social legislation are different
from the canons of interpretation of taxation law. The courts must not
countenance any subterfuge which would defeat the provisions of social
legislation and the courts must even, if necessary, strain the language of
the Act in order to achieve the purpose which the legislature had in placing
this legislation on the statute book. The Act, therefore, must receive a
liberal construction so as to promote its objects.”
20. K.H. Nazar Vs. Mathew K. Jacob6, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held
thus:
“11. Provisions of a beneficial legislation have to be construed with a
purpose-oriented approach. [Kerala Fishermen’s Welfare Fund Board v.
Fancy Food, (1995) 4 SCC 341] The Act should receive a liberal
construction to promote its objects. [Bombay Anand Bhavan Restaurant v.
ESI Corpn., (2009) 9 SCC 61 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 573 and Union of India
v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 813]
Also, literal construction of the provisions of a beneficial legislation has to
be avoided. It is the court’s duty to discern the intention of the legislature in
making the law. Once such an intention is ascertained, the statute should
receive a purposeful or functional interpretation [Bharat Singh v. New Delhi
Tuberculosis Centre, (1986) 2 SCC 614 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 335].”
21. This Court is conscious that the Court is not dealing with the
interpretation of beneficial legislation. However, this Court is taking a
clue from the expressions of the aforementioned judgments of the
Hon‟ble Apex Court regarding the interpretation of a bread-and-butter
Government Order, issued under Art 162 of the Constitution of India, i.e.
6
(2020) 14 SCC 126
Page 14 of 15
G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986. Indeed, as discussed supra, it is a
socio-welfare and beneficial scheme.
22. As discussed supra, it is an undisputed fact that the name of the
petitioner‟s father was included in the list of 2010, however, he was not
provided employment and he died in April, 2018. The mother of the
petitioner, as seen from the affidavit, is not eligible and hence, the
petitioner made a representation to include his name. If the strict
interpretation is being applied to Para No.2 of G.O.Ms.No.98 dated
15.04.1986, in case the awardee or his son/daughter/spouse could not
be provided with employment for various reasons, not for their fault,
because of the lapses on the part of the Government, (ineligibility by
virtue of age and death), the next generation shall be provided with
employment grandson. Otherwise, the very purpose of the issuance of
G.O. will be frustrated or stultified.
23. It is pertinent to mention here that the Government vide Memo
No.4346/R&R-A2/2011-2 dated 11.07.2012 included the name of the
grandchild of an awardee due to the pathetic condition of the family. In
the case at hand, it is not the case of respondents, that no other member
of the family is in employment and hence, the petitioner’s name shall not
be included. In fact, if the petitioner‟s name is not included in the list, it
amounts to discrimination.
24. Learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.586 of 2022 dated
16.03.2022 allowed the writ petition directing the respondent authorities
to include the name of a grandchild. The intra-court appeal W.A.No.667
of 2022 was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on
27.10.2022.
Page 15 of 15
25. Given the discussions supra, the Writ Petition is allowed. The
respondent authorities shall include the name of the petitioner at serial
No.69 against his father as per the list prepared by the District Selection
Committee on 25.08.2010 within four weeks from the date of receipt of
the copy of the order. Thereafter the respondent authorities shall
consider the case of the petitioner for employment in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.04.1986. No costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Note: LR copy to be marked
B/O
PVD
[ad_1]
Source link