IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 20560 of 2000 Between: Smt. S.Kannemma, W/o. Late Ramaiah, R/o. Kadiri Kuppam Village, Karvatinagar Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Rep. by it's Executive Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. .....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, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Order Roc.No.TL7/11235/99, dt.17.5.2000 issued by the Respondent as arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal and consequently set aside the said Order dt.17-5-2000 and direct the respondent to consider and appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds forthwith with all consequential benefits monetary and otherwise and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. The prayer is amended as per court order dt.2.11.2000 in W.P.M.P. 26414/2000. The prayer is amended as per the court order dt.2.11.2000. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.JAGAPATHI Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 20560 of 2000 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for issue of a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Order in Roc.No.TL7/11235/99, dt.17.5.2000 issued by the respondent as arbitrary, discriminatory, and illegal and consequently set aside the said Order dated 17-5-2000 and direct the respondent to consider and appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds forthwith with all consequential benefits monetary and otherwise. The case of the petitioner is that she is the wife of an employee by name T. Ramaiah, who was a permanent employee in the respondent-Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam’s office, working as a Sanitary Worker and died on 2.6.1988 during the course of his employment. Consequent to the death of the deceased employee, she made an application dated 24.9.1999 to the respondent seeking employment on compassionate grounds. The said application was rejected by the respondent on the ground that the claim of the petitioner was belated and she is not destitute vide proceedings in Roc.No.TL7/11235/99, dated 17.5.2000, which is impugned in the writ petition. Her case is that her husband died while he was in service on 2.6.1988, she made a representation dated 11.6.1998 seeking compassionate appointment. While so, one Chellamma, who claimed to be the legally wedded wife of late T.Ramaiah filed O.P.No.30 of 1988 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Tirupathi for declaration that she is the legally wedded wife and legal heir of late T.Ramaiah and the same was dismissed on 12.2.1992. Being aggrieved by the same, she filed A.S.No.65 of 1992 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi and the same was dismissed on 8.6.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated 30.11.1998 enclosing a copy of the judgment and decree dated 8.6.1998 in A.S.No.65 of 1992 to the respondent and requested for providing an employment to her on compassionate grounds. The same was also rejected. Counter filed by the respondents. In the counter affidavit inter alia it is stated that Late T.Ramaiah was temporarily appointed as Sanitary Worker on 25.7.1979, his services were regularized, he was declared as an approved probationer w.e.f 31.7.1981 vide proceedings dated 2.6.1988, and he died on 2.6.1988 while in service. It is also stated that after the death of late T.Ramaiah, S.Kannamma (petitioner) and T.Chellamma claimed death benefits. As there was a rival claim, they were instructed to obtain succession certificate from the competent Court. Further in the counter, referring to the cases filed by in O.P.No.30 of 1988 and A.S.No.65 of 1992 and stating that the petitioner only claimed monetary benefits and that she did not seek for compassionate appointment within reasonable time and made application only on 30.11.1993, belatedly, and for all these years she managed herself and hence she is not entitled for compassionate appointment, and accordingly sought for disposal of the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed by the respondent on untenable grounds that the claim of the petitioner is belated and that she is not destitute. These grounds are not the substantive and sought to set aside the impugned order and direct the respondent to provide employment on compassionate grounds. The learned Standing counsel for the respondent submits that since the impugned order has been passed, after considering the merits of the case and finding that the claim of the petitioner is belated and that she is not a destitute, the same does not suffer from any legal infirmity and sought to dismissal of writ petition. There is no dispute with regard to the status of the petitioner, as the wife of the deceased employee, who died in harness. There is also no dispute with regard to the factual position that she made an application dated 11.6.1988. While that application was pending , and having come to know that the petitioner made a representation to the authorities seeking for employment on compassionate grounds, one Chellamma claimed to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased filed O.P.No.30 of 1988 seeking for declaration that she is legally wedded wife of the deceased and the same was dismissed on 12.2.1992. Aggrieved by the same, the said Chellamma filed A.S.No.65 of 1992 and the same was also dismissed on 8.6.1998 confirming the decree and judgment passed in O.P.No.30 of 1998. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner also made a representation dated 13.11.1998 enclosing a copy of the judgment and decree dated 8.6.1998 in A.S.No.65 of 1992 and requested the respondent for considering her case for providing employment on compassionate grounds. The material on record further reveals that the respondent also issued proceedings Roc.No.A3/0373/CAO/99, dated 16.2.1999, settling the family pension and retirement gratuity to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till the settlement of the pensionary benefits by issuing proceedings dated 16.2.1999, nobodies claim was entertained by the respondent for providing employment on compassionate grounds, therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot be said to be belated. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased employee expired on 2.6.1988 whereas the petitioner made a representation on 11.6.1988 i.e. nine days after the death of the deceased. Therefore, the application was well within time. He submits that only after the proceedings in O.P.No.30 of 1988 in A.S.No.65 of 1992 filed by one Chellamma, the respondent has issued the proceedings in favour of the petitioner, settling the terminal benefits in respect of late T.Ramaiah who is the husband of the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that absolutely there is a misconception on the part of the respondent in holding that the application filed made by the petitioner is a belated one. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since these facts are not dealt with the respondent in detail, the case of the petitioner requires to be reconsidered. Having regard to the submissions made by both the counsel, since the factual position is not under dispute, I am of the prima facie view that the application filed by the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment is within time. Further the fact remains that the petitioner’s retiremental benefits have been finalized by the respondent by issuing the proceedings dated 16.2.1989 and further the impugned order also refers to certain representations made by the petitioner viz., dated 28.5.1999 and 3.4.2002 and also the judgment and decree dated 8.6.1982. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside directing the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh taking into consideration the material that is available before the respondent and pass appropriate orders for providing the employment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ____________________ Justice G. Chandraiah Date:05.08.2008 mrb The petitioners were selected and appointed by the competent authority in the sanctioned and existing vacancies of Junior Assistants in Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences (SVIMS) on 9.8.1993, 18.9.1993 and 1.6.1994 respectively. Initially, they were appointed on consolidation pay for a period of three months and thereafter, while continuing them in services. The petitioners were granted time scale of pay attached to the post of Junior Assistant by proceedings dated 6.2.1994, 18.12.1993 and 1.9.1994 respectively. Their case is that the respondent institution was established in 1992 in which, the petitioners were appointed, after getting their names from the employment exchange. It is also their case that the petitioners’ services have been regularized w.e.f 17.7.1997 from the date of subsequent to the date of appointment. It is also their case that in respect of similarly situated persons, whose services were regularized from the date of appointment. Therefore, they filed this present writ petition. A counter has been filed by the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioners were appointed as Junior Assistants in the respondent Institution in the year of 1993 and 1994 but their services have been regularized only w.e.f 17.7.1997. He also submitted that by proceedings, the Executive Board passed a resolution on 6.4.2002 in respect of certain candidates on the aspect of regularization of their services. Consequently, the proceedings have been issued on 17.5.2002, whereunder it is mentioned that two persons namely; V.Krishnamurthy and T.Gangadharam were appointed as Autoclave Operators and whose services have been regularized w.e.f 18.7.1996. The documents have also been filed by the petitioner along with the W.P.M.P.No.2691 of 2006. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that though the representation made by the petitioners on 22.9.2006, wherein they categorically stated that they were appointed in the year 1993 and 1994, but their services have been regularized only from 17.7.1997. Even though they are entitled to regularization of their services from the date of initial appointment, the learned counsel submits that no orders have been passed on the said representation. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions made by both the counsel, I am of the view that without going into the merits of the case, the petitioners are entitled to the regularization of their services from the date of their initial appointment taking into consideration the decision taken by the respondent in respect of the similarly situated persons, particularly keeping in view of the proceedings in ROC No.C1/55/SVIMS/96, dated 17.5.2002 issued by the Superintendent in respect of two candidates namely; V.Krishnamurthy and T.Gangadharam, which have been issued notification by the Executive Board on 6.4.2002 in respect of item No.41 therein to dispose of the representation made by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of . No costs.