THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA Writ Petition No.23642 of 2006 Dated:15th November, 2006 Between: C.Naveen Kumar Reddy, S/o Late K.Najaki Jaya Rami Reddy, Aged about 20 years, Occ: Unemployee, r/o H.No.45-24, R/30, Neelam Raja Sekhar Reddy Colony, Kurnool. …..PETITIONER AND The Principal Secretary to Govt., Dept of General Administration (Ser.G), Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. ….RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA W.P.No.23642 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated 3-11-2005 seeking reconsideration of his case for compassionate appointment. The petitioner made a representation to the District Collector- cum-Chairman for compassionate appointment as is father expired on 15-12-2004 while working as attender in the S.C Corporation, Kurnool. The Executive Director of the respondent Corporation by letter dated 21-6-2005 recommended the case of the petitioner stating that there are instructions from the government that all the service and other rules applicable to the government employees are applicable to the employees of the S.C. Corporation. He made a representation to the 2nd respondent on 25-7-2005 to consider his case for compassionate appointment, but the 1st respondent rejected the representation based on G.O.Ms.No.36 dated 5-9-2001, which says that those who received ex-gratia on account of the demise of the employee are not eligible for compassionate appointment. The petitioner states that the said G.O is not applicable to him inasmuch he has not received ex-gratia amount on account of demise of his father, and that the District Collector rejected his case for compassionate appointment without considering the relevant G.Os., issued from time to time. It is the case of the petitioner that he made another representation to the 2nd respondent/District Collector on 3-11-2005 with the clarification to the G.O.Ms.No.36 dated 5-9-2001 to reconsider his case for compassionate appointment but the same is not considered till date. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader for Administration and the learned Government Pleader for Co-operation. Inasmuch as the petitioner sought a relief to direct the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 3-11-2005 seeking reconsideration of his case for compassionate appointment, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction as under: The respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 3-11-2005 seeking reconsideration of his case for compassionate appointment and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. No costs. ___________________ (N.V. RAMANA, J.) Date:13th November, 2006. GRK