IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.7690 of 2009 Between: The Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Sanchalan Bhavan, Secunderabad and another ..... PETITIONERS AND Smt.D.Lalitha Bai .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.7690 of 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V.Afzulpurkar) The respondent in O.A.659/2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) has questioned the order of the Tribunal dated 04.09.2008 in this writ petition. 2. The respondent herein is the widow of one Mr.D.Vijaya Kumar, who was working with the petitioners’ organization as Carriage Fitter H.S- II. On account of disciplinary enquiry, the husband of the respondent herein suffered with punishment of removal on 05.06.1995, however, on appeal filed by him, the appellate authority modified the punishment to one of reversion to a lower grade, vide orders of the appellate authority dated 21.03.1996. The said order was served on the husband of the respondent and the said order itself stated that separate posting orders will be issued by the competent authority. However, no posting orders were issued during the lifetime of the husband of the respondent, who ultimately died on 10.09.2000. The respondent herein made an application dated 04.12.2000 to the Senior Divisional Officer, South Central Railways, Secunderabad informing the death of her husband and seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, and by further representation dated 24.03.2002 which was forwarded to the Chief Personnel Officer, Secunderabad. The petitioners passed an order dated 08.10.2002 rejecting her request for compassionate appointment on the ground that her husband was not in service at the time of death. The respondent thereupon has approached the Tribunal seeking relief that she is entitled to be considered for appointment under the compassionate appointment category. 3. The Tribunal considered the matter in the light of the reply filed by the petitioners and came to hold that in pursuance of the appellate order, modifying the punishment of removal from service to that of a reversion to a lower grade, no further posting order was passed by the administration in favour of the husband of the respondent. Accordingly, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it has to be deemed that the husband of the respondent continued to be in service. However, the claim for compassionate appointment which was rejected by the petitioners, was not interfered with by the Tribunal, but to the extent of the terminal benefits accruable to the husband of the respondent was directed to be settled and the amount was directed to be paid to the respondent. Questioning that part of the order, the present writ petition is filed. 4. On 17.04.2009 while issuing the notice before admission, this Court permitted the learned counsel for the petitioners to serve notice on the respondent and file proof of service. We had given further direction to issue fresh notice, by our order dated 05.09.2009. Now the learned counsel for the petitioners filed the proof of service and though notice was served on the respondent on 15.10.2009, but nobody appeared on his behalf. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the order of the Tribunal. We have also perused the counter filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal wherein also they have not denied the specific allegation of the respondent herein that no posting orders were served on the husband of the respondent during his lifetime. The said averment of the petitioners herein having remained uncontroverted, it cannot be said that the respondent’s husband was at fault in not making efforts to join in the post, as presumably he was awaiting for the posting orders as per the directions of the appellate authority. The petitioners themselves having not issued any posting orders they cannot deny the claim of the respondent herein. The Tribunal, therefore, has rightly directed the petitioners herein to treat that respondent’s husband was an employee reinstated into service, for the purpose of fixing terminal benefits and settlement of dues and pay the same to the respondent herein. 6. We are unable to appreciate any illegality or perversity in the order of the Tribunal. The Writ Petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed as it is without any merits. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J _______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J Dated: 26.10.2009 Dsr