IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 10205 of 2008 Between: K.Kishore Kumar, S/o. late K.Bala Raju, R/o. 8-8-236/1, Opp.Shivalayam Temple, Brahmana Bazar, Khammam, Khammam District- 507 001. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Zonal Manager, Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office. 2 The General Manager,(AP), Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Hyderabad. 3 The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Khammam, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in issuing the proceedings No.PF/812/Estt, dated 29-9-2007 rejecting the case of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and not tenable in law, Hence the same is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and further declare that petitioner is entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds in the respondents’ company and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.SURENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.PUSHPINDER KAUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 10205 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the Proceedings No. PF/812/Estt, dated 29-9-2007 rejecting the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as arbitrary and illegal. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the father of the applicant while working in the respondent- organization died in harness on 11.6.2001. Thus, he made an application on 21.2.2002 seeking to provide appointment to him on compassionate grounds as per the scheme available in the organization. However, no decision was taken till 2005 and in 2005, a Committee was constituted and the application of the petitioner was rejected through the impugned order dated 29.9.2007 by the said Committee stating that the application of the petitioner for appointment under D.D.E. quota was deleted from the list since it was more than three years old. He, therefore, states that such rejection by the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. Since the date of application, i.e. from 21.2.2002, no Committee met for the purpose of considering the cases of the applicants for compassionate appointments in the organization. Simply because, by the time the Committee met on 29.9.2007, three years period was over, the name of the petitioner could not have been deleted from the list. Of course, the learned counsel for the respondents states that even for various other reasons, the application of the petitioner was liable to be rejected. But, it is unfortunate that no such reasons were furnished in the impugned order. The impugned order speaks of only deletion of the name of the petitioner from the list since it is more than three years old - to say that the application was not considered within three years. The delay in considering the application of the petitioner within three years cannot be attributed to the petitioner. It is for the management to place such applications for consideration before the Committee when any such committee is met within three years for considering and passing appropriate orders as per law. For the above reasons, I am of the opinion that the respondents have adopted a pedantic approach in rejecting the application of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside directing the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioner for providing compassionate appointment after issuing a notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders as per the Scheme, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. No costs. _______________ C.V. RAMULU,J DATE: 15th SEPTEMBER, 2008 pnb