HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI WRIT PETITION No. 9543 OF 2010 Thursday, the Fifteenth day of July, Two Thousand and Ten Between Yala Asiryya @ Asiri Appalaraju s/o Late Manga Raju Petitioner AND The Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Lal Bahadur Stadium, Hyderabad and others Respondents THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI WRIT PETITION NO. 9543 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER: The proceedings No.SAAP/A4/3874/2009 dated 6.1.2010 issued by the first respondent rejecting the claim of the legal heirs of late Yalla Manga Raju, a temporary employee of the Sports Authority, for compassionate appointment, is questioned in this writ petition. The father of the petitioner worked as Watchman in the third respondent since 1983. In the year 1989 on his terminated, he raised Industrial Dispute in ID No. 206 of 1990, which was allowed by order dated 19.8.1983 directing the respondents to reinstate him with back wages and continuity of service. Aggrieved thereby, the Sports Authority filed W.P. No. 3109 of 1994 which was disposed of by order dated 24.6.1997 directing the Sports Authority to reinstate the petitioner herein without back wages and continuity of service. Consequently, the father of the petitioner was reinstated into service on 3.3.1999 appointing him as watchman on a consolidated pay of Rs.500/- per month. It is further his case that since the respondents were not inclined to implement various G.Os. issued by the Government from time to time with regard to his pay and allowances and other benefits, his father filed WP No. 16043 of 2003 for implementation of GO Ms. No. 38 dated 26.2.1999 and GO Ms. 25 dated 21.1.2003, which is pending and under the pretext of pendency of the writ petition, his salary was not enhanced. While so, his father died in harness on 26.05.2009 and the petitioner herein submitted representation dated 24.07.2009 to appoint him in the Last Grade Service and to release the benefits. It is further stated that questioning the inaction on the part of the respondents in not considering the representation, he filed WP No. 24322 of 2009 and this court passed an interim order directing the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within four weeks. Pursuant to the said direction, the impugned order was passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that the scheme of compassionate appointment issued in GO Ms. No.687 G.A. (Ser.A) Department dated 3.10.1973 is applicable to the Government employees and it cannot be extended to the employee of the Sports Authority apart from the fact that the father of the petitioner was only a temporary watchman. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the first respondent relying on Memo No.1813/S1/2009 dated 9.6.2009 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Youth Advancement, Tourism & Culture (Sports) Department, has contended that the scheme of compassionate appointment issued in GO Ms. No. 687 (G.A(Ser.A) Department dated 3.10.1977 is applicable to the Government Servants only and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek the relief of compassionate appointment, while it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the compassionate appointment is a welfare measure, intended to ameliorate the sufferings of the bereaved family and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds in the Last Grade Service. In the backdrop of these submissions, let us examine as to whether the petitioner can claim appointment under the scheme of compassionate appointments. The Supreme Court in a decision Director of Education (Secondary) &Another Vs. sPushpendra Kumar & Others ([1]) has observed that the object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner. Such a provision makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment on the post by following a particular procedure which is in the nature of an exception. The exception cannot subsume the main provision to which it is an exception and thereby nullify the main provisions by taking away completely the right conferred by the main provision. If a post in Class III is not available in the institution in which the dependent was employed or in any other institution in the district, the dependent which would be appointed on a Class IV post in the institution in which the deceased employee was employed and for that purpose, a supernumery post in Class IV may be created. In view of the observations made by the Apex Court holding that the scheme of compassionate appointment is an exception, with an object to provide for the grant of compassionate appointment so as to enable the family of the deceased to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Here in this case, since father of the petitioner died in harness, suffice it to direct the first respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as temporary watchman so that the family of the petitioner can tide over the crisis, resultant to the death of his father. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari July 15, 2010 MAS [1] AIR 1998 SC 2230