IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20930 of 2002 Between: Ch. Ramudu … Petitioner AND The Personal Officer, Southern Power Distribution Co., of A.P., Ltd., O/o. Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Vijayawada, & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri G. Abdul Khader Counsel for the respondents : Sri P.R. Balarami Reddy SC for AP Transco This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20930 of 2002 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in considering the petitioner’s representation for granting all benefits under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme on medical invalidation, as illegal. The petitioner, who worked as Attendar with the respondents, was scheduled to retire on 30.06.2005. He, however, applied for voluntary retirement on medical invalidation as per the scheme framed by the erstwhile A.P. State Electricity Board. The petitioner was examined by the medical board constituted by respondent No.3 and declared fit in the first instance on 11.05.1999. Thereafter, correspondence ensued between the petitioner and the officers concerned. The petitioner was eventually declared medically unfit on 13.07.2000. It is an admitted fact that for providing employment to the spouse/dependant children of the employee allowed to retire on the ground of medical invalidation, such retirement should have been made at least 5 years prior to the scheduled date of retirement on reaching the age of superannuation. In case of the petitioner, he is seeking employment to his dependant son, which was rejected by the respondents on the ground that minimum period of 5 years, as mentioned above, did not exist in his case. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner made strenuous efforts to convince this Court that the respondents have timed medical invalidation in such a way that they have deliberately rejected the petitioner’s case once and later declared him medically unfit after ensuring that he crosses the safe zone of 5 years. The learned counsel lamented that the petitioner fell short by 13 days of the required 5 years period, which would have rendered his son eligible for being appointed in his place. A counter affidavit is filed denying the allegations of mala fides. The law is well settled that the allegations of mala fides, which are very easy to make, are difficult to prove. Though the petitioner made serious allegations, a careful perusal of the averments contained in the affidavit and the material filed by him shows that he failed to substantiate the allegations of mala fides. Therefore, no specific finding thereon can be rendered. Be that as it may, from the dates referred to above, I find some substance in the grievance of the petitioner. Having found the petitioner suitable to continue him on 11.05.1999, he was declared medically unfit within a period of a few months thereafter i.e., on 13.07.2000. Had the petitioner been declared unfit on or before 30.06.2000, his son would have been eligible for being considered for appointment in his place. These facts clearly show that the petitioner’s son is deprived of the employment on account of the delayed declaration of the petitioner as medically unfit by 13 days. While I would not like to pronounce on the allegations of mala fides on the reasons already mentioned above, the fact, however, remains that the respondents have in a similar case relaxed the shortfall in the required 5 years period in case of Sri B. Swaroopa Kumar. In paragraph 13 of the affidavit, the petitioner specifically pleaded this fact apart from filing proceedings dated 13.11.2001 of respondent No.3 from which it is evident that while the case of Sri B.Swaroopa Kumar son of B.Yesupadam was rejected once on the ground of shortfall, by the said proceedings his case was reconsidered and the requirement of 5 years was relaxed. Though the respondents in their counter affidavit referred in detail to the facts pertaining to Sri B. Swaroopa Kumar, they failed to distinguish his case with the case of the petitioner. Although, the scheme may not be providing for relaxation, respondent No.3 in its wisdom exercised its inherent power of relaxation in case of Sri B.Swaroopa Kumar. Unless the respondents distinguish between the two cases, I do not see any justification whatsoever to single out the petitioner and deny the same benefit of relaxation, which was extended to Sri B.Swaroopa Kumar. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to reconsider the request of the petitioner for providing employment to his son, subject to his eligibility by relaxing the requirement of 5 years as done in the case of Sri B. Swaroopa Kumar. Respondent No.3 shall pass an appropriate order in this regard within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.26198 of 2002 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 29.01.2009 ES