HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No. 22666 OF 2000 Monday, the Twenty Eighth Day of June, Two Thousand and Ten Between The General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad, and another Petitioners AND S. Mohammed Mustafa Respondents JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) Assailing the order dated 16.04.1999 in O.A. No. 1571 of 1998 and further order dated 19.9.2000 passed in C.P. No. 30 of 2000 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, whereby the petitioners herein were directed to consider claim of the respondent for employment in the light of the provisions of the scheme, the present writ petition is filed. The case of the respondent – applicant before the Tribunal was that an extent of land Ac.1.68 cents in Sy. No.861, Sattipalli, was acquired by the petitioners herein in 1981 for construction of Carriage Repair Shop at Tirupathi. The respondent herein is the grandson of the original landowner, who passed away long ago. Having distributed the compensation in respect of the said land equally, the widow of first son and other three sons of the original owner, have submitted notorised affidavit to the effect that they have no objection if the respondent herein is provided employment by the petitioners. The case of the petitioners – Railways is that the respondent could not be offered employment, inasmuch as he is neither a displaced person nor the son or unmarried daughter of such original landowner, for they alone are eligible for appointment under the scheme. The Tribunal, by order dated 16.4.1999, has disposed of the O.A. as stated above. The respondent herein, complaining non- compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal in the above O.A. filed contempt in CA No. 30 of 2000 wherein, the petitioners herein have resorted to the same objection. The Tribunal while extending the time for compliance of the direction earlier given in the O.A., has closed the Contempt. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Though several contentions are sought to be raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners herein with regard to the scheme for providing employment, we feel that the Tribunal is justified in observing that since the petitioners have not laid down any time frame for consideration of such cases, it has obviously resulted in belated claims by the second and third generation heirs of the original land-losers and, therefore, in the light of the scheme prevalent as on that date, the case of the respondent needs to be considered. Having given our anxious consideration, we do not find any justification in interfering with the order impugned. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________ Justice P.S.Narayana June 28, 2010 MAS.