IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 12973 of 2000 Between: Nallmuthu Peramma @ prasanna, W/o late N.Srinivasa Rao, R/o 7-23, Vysya Bazar, Tangutur, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND The A.P. State Co-operative Rural Irrigation Corporation Ltd Rep by the Managing Director,5-10-193, 1st Floor, Haca Bhavan, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 a writ order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus setting aide the orders of the respondent in proceedings No.RIC/Adm./618/85/851, dt.6.5.2000 with directions to give teh petitioner's qualifications with all consequential benefts Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.S.TRIPURA SUNDARI Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.NO.12973 of 2000 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order passed by the respondent dated.06-05-2000 thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds as arbitrary and illegal. The facts, in brief, are as under:- The husband of the petitioner joined the service of the respondent-The Andhra Pradesh State Co-operative Rural Irrigation Corporation Limited on 01-01-1986 as Helper Grade.1 and while in service he died on 16-11-1998 leaving behind his widow-the petitioner herein and two minor sons. The petitioner passed Intermediate and also acquired the qualification of Telugu and English Typewriting apart from lower grade in English Shorthand. In the circumstances in January-1999 the petitioner made an application requesting the respondent-Corporation to appoint her as Record Assistant/Junior Assistant/Typist on compassionate grounds. While rejecting the said request under the impugned proceedings dated.06-05-2000, the petitioner was sanctioned ex gratia of Rs.20,000/- in lump sum. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondent-Corporation the present writ petition has been filed. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent- Corporation while reiterating the stand that as per G.O.Ms.No.59 dated.05-02-1993 the petitioner is entitled only to receive ex gratia of Rs.20,000/-, it is further stated that in view of the accumulated losses Voluntary Retirement Service(VRS) Scheme has been implemented in the respondent-Corporation in respect of the identified surplus staff and therefore appointment of the petitioner on the compassionate grounds is not possible. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Even assuming that VRS scheme has been implemented in the respondent-Corporation, on a perusal of the impugned order it appears that the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds rejected mainly on the ground that no suitable persons were available for appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme and accordingly the petitioner was sanctioned ex gratia of Rs.20,000/- in lump sum in terms of G.O.Ms.No.59 dated.04-02-1993. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that though the children of the deceased were minors by the date of his death, since the petitioner was eligible for appointment and since there was no other earning member in the family, the corporation ought to have provided appointment to the petitioner instead of paying ex gratia under G.O.Ms.No.59 dated.04-12-1993. Admittedly the writ petitioner, who is the widow of the deceased-employee made an application immediately after his death stating that she is eligible for appointment as Record Assistant/Junior Assistant/Typist. Since ex gratia under G.O.Ms.No.59 is payable only where no suitable persons for appointment under the scheme of compassionate appointment are available, the respondent-Corporation ought to have considered the petitioner’s claim for appointment before directing payment of ex gratia under the impugned order. Since no such consideration was made, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Corporation to reconsider the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three(3) months from the date of receipt of this order. However, it is made clear that in case it is not possible to appoint the petitioner under the scheme of compassionate appointment, the petitioner shall be paid the ex gratia under G.O.Ms.No.59 dated.05-02-1993 as ordered in the impugned order dated.06.05.2000. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. 26.03.2009 *TSNR