THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.2546 OF 2001 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the constitution of India, is filed to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein to appoint petitioner No.2 herein in a suitable post in respondent No.1 – University on compassionate grounds with effect from the date of retirement of petitioner No.1 herein on Medical Invalidation, with all consequential benefits and attendant benefits, by holding the act of respondent No.1 in writing to the Government on wrong presumption and the action of respondent No.2 herein in sitting over the matter and not clarifying respondent No.1 that without their intervention respondent No.1 can go ahead with the compassionate appointment of petitioner No.2 herein, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present Writ Petition may be stated as follows: Petitioner No.1 herein was working as a Utensil Cleaner in respondent No.1 – University. Through G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 09.06.1998, Government laid down a procedure for compassionate appointment of dependants of Government Employees on their retirement under Medical Invalidation. Petitioner No.1, who was ailing with chronic disease, made a representation, dated 18.02.1999, to respondent No.1 requesting for permission to retire her on medical invalidation grounds and to provide a suitable job to her son, who is petitioner No.2 herein. The Regional Medical Board examined petitioner No.1 herein on 17.03.1999 and opined that petitioner No.1 herein is medically invalidated to be continued in service and communicated the same to respondent No.1 through letter, dated 30.03.1999. Respondent No.1 through its proceedings, dated 08.06.1999, retired petitioner No.1 herein from service on medical invalidation with effect from 17.03.1999, the date on which petitioner No.1 underwent medical examination in the Medical Board. At that time, petitioner No.1 was having five years and fourteen days left over service. Though the committee was constituted by the Executive Council on 25.11.1998, the committee did not meet to consider the cases of medical invalidation and compassionate appointments. The representation of petitioner No.1 could not be placed before the committee. The said committee for the first time met on 21.05.2000 and ratified the action taken by respondent No.1 in retiring petitioner No.1 from service with effect from 17.03.1999, through proceedings, dated 08.06.1999. The committee, which met on 21.05.2000, has also resolved to write to the Government for compassionate appointment of petitioner No.2, through proceedings dated 21.06.2000. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 made another representation, dated 12.12.2000, for appointment of petitioner No.2 on compassionate grounds. Through proceedings dated 30.12.2000, respondent No.1 – University informed that the matter was referred to the Government. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Respondent No.1 filed counter inter alia stating that petitioner No.1 was working as Utensil Cleaner in Nagarjuna University Hostels. As per Service Register, her date of birth is 04.03.1944 and her original retirement date is 31.03.2004. Petitioner No.1 submitted a representation on 18.02.1999 to respondent No.1 – University requesting for permission to retire her on Medical Invalidation grounds. Therefore, respondent No.1 referred petitioner No.1 to the Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Guntur, for medical examination by Regional Medical Board. The Board examined petitioner No.1 on 17.03.1999 and recommended that she is medically invalidated to be continued in service. In pursuance of the recommendations of the Medical Board, she was retired from service with effect from 17.03.1999. The Executive Council of the university by its resolution, dated 25.11.1999, constituted a University Level Committee to examine the cases in pursuance of the rules laid down in G.O.Ms.No.214, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 09.06.1998. The committee met on 21.05.2000 and considered the case of petitioner No.1 for retirement on Medical Invalidation grounds, subject to other conditions. As on the date of meeting of the committee held on 21.05.2000, petitioner No.1 had less than five years of service. Respondent No.1 referred the matter of petitioner No.1 to the Government for consideration. The Government has not taken any action in pursuance of the recommendations made by respondent No.1 – University. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as on the date of the retirement on the ground of medical invalidation, the petitioner had more than five years of service and that has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of appointing petitioner No.2 on compassionate grounds; that giving of compassionate appointment is in existence and therefore, he prays to direct respondent No.2 to consider the case of petitioner No.1. 5. Now the point for consideration is whether the compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, which is governed by the rules existing? 6. Compassionate appointment is governed by G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 09.06.1998. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the said G.O. was struck down by this Court. But, it is stated that the Honourable Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of this Court. Thereby, it is clear that G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 09.06.1998, is still in force and if the case of petitioner No.1 falls under the conditions laid down in the G.O., one of the dependants of Petitioner No.1 has to be given appointment on compassionate grounds. That aspect of the case has to be considered by respondent No.2 in view of the fact that respondent No.1 had already referred the matter of petitioner No.1 to the Government for consideration in pursuance of the resolution in the committee meeting held on 21.05.2000. Therefore, appropriate decision has to be taken by respondent No.2 in terms of the rules or Government Orders, which are in force for the purpose of appointing one of the dependants of petitioner No.1 on compassionate grounds. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing firstly, the committee constituted by respondent No1. – University itself shall take a decision as to whether petitioner No.1 was having the service of five years as on the date of retirement on medical invalidation and secondly, after receipt of report, respondent No.2 to consider the case of petitioner No.1 in appointing petitioner No.2 on compassionate grounds strictly in accordance with law or rules or the Government Orders existing, in pursuance of the report submitted by respondent No.1, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to petitioner No.1, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a report from the committee constituted by respondent No.1. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J November 25, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.2546 OF 2001 Between: N. Bhagyamma and another .....PETITIONERS AND Nagarjuna University and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.2546 OF 2001 November 25, 2010