IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8990 of 2008 Between: P.Madhavi D/o.Late M.Narayana R/o.H.No.5-10-80/81 Kothagudem (V&M) Khammam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 AP Power Generation Corporation, Vidyuthsoudha Somajiguda, Hyderabad-82, rep.by its Managing Director 2 The Chief General Manager,(Adm), APGENCO Ltd Vidyuthsoudha, Hyderabad-82 3 The Chief Engineer(O&M), Kothagudem Thermal Power Station, V STage, AP GENCO Ltd Paloncha, Khammam District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any appropriate writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the actionof 2nd & 3rd respondents in issuing the Memo No.GM(A)/DS(P)/AS(R)/PO-A/A2-311./02 dated 24.4.2002 and Memo No.CE?O&M/KTPS.V/PO/Adm/A1/F.29E/D,.No.938/02 dated 15.5.2002 and the action of the 1st respondent in not disposing of the petitioner appeal dated 24.3.2005 in spite reminders as arbitrary, illegal, & violative of Art.14,16,& 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the petitioner appeal dated 24.3.2005 and appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds against any suitable post. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CHANDRAIAH SUNKARA Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM(SC FOR AP GENCO) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner submitted an application to the third respondent, with a request to appoint her on compassionate grounds, on account of the death of her father-M.Narayana, an Ex-Mazdoor, who is said to have died, while in service, on 16.07.2001. The third respondent forwarded the same to the second respondent. The latter, in turn, issued a memo, dated 24.04.2002, observing that the case of the petitioner is negatived, since it does not come within the purview of G.O.O.729/GM(A)/2000, dated 05.03.2001. This, in turn, was communicated to the petitioner by the third respondent, vide memo, dated 15.05.2002. The petitioner claims to have preferred an appeal to the first respondent against the memo, dated 24.04.2002, issued by the second respondent. Her grievance is that no action has been taken thereon so far. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner made her claim before the third respondent for appointment, on compassionate grounds. The second respondent, who examined the matter, on a reference made by the third respondent, took the view that the petitioner is not entitled for that benefit. The appeal preferred by the petitioner to the first respondent cannot be kept pending indefinitely. The matter needs to be given quietus, at the earliest. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the appeal preferred by the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also directed that the petitioner shall enclose a copy of memorandum of grounds of appeal, along with the copy of this order to the first respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.24.04.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}