IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 936 of 2007 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 06.09.2007 in W.P.No.11671 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: A.Suresh, S/o. A.Yadaiah, R/o. H.No.9-1-333/1, Laxminagar, Langar House, Hyderabad. .....Appellant And 1.The Government of A.P., represented by its Secretary, Higher Education, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2.The Commissioner and Director of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3.The Regional Joint Director, Intermediate Education, Zone VII, Nampally, Hyderabad. 4. The Secretary and Correspondent, Kasturba Gandhi Junior College for Women, West Marredpally,Secunderabad. .....Respondents Counsel for the appellant : Sri Sadu Rajeswar Reddy Counsel for the respondents : Asst. Govt. Pleader for Higher Education The Court passed the following : JUDGMENT: (per Anil R. Dave, C.J.) Order passed in Writ Petition No.11671 of 2006 dated 6th September, 2007 has been challenged in this appeal. The facts giving rise to the appeal in a nutshell are as under: The appellant, who is the original petitioner, had approached this Court by filing a writ petition with a prayer that the respondents be directed to give appointment to him on compassionate ground as his father had died in harness. The father of the petitioner was working as a Watchman in a private aided college. It was the case of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge that because of the demise of the father, the family was in difficulties and, therefore, the petitioner ought to have been given appointment to any post on compassionate ground. The petitioner had relied upon the recommendation made by some of the authorities to the effect that the petitioner should have been given appointment on compassionate ground. After hearing the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, the learned Single Judge was pleased to reject the petition on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to appointment on compassionate ground because the policy, which was in force with regard to compassionate appointment, did not permit appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. The petition was, therefore, rejected by the impugned order. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant – petitioner has submitted before this Court that the appellant is staying separately from his mother, who is working as an Attender in a college. He has also stated that the appellant is staying with his unmarried sister and, therefore, the income of the mother should not have been considered. It has been further submitted that at one point of time, some of the authorities had suggested that the appellant be given appointment on compassionate ground. It has been submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is unjust, improper, illegal and is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Draupadi Behara[1]. He has also relied upon a judgment delivered by a learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in the case of K. Arumugam v. Secretary to Government, Government of Pondicherry[2]. Looking to the fact that the policy framed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in Education Department under G.O.Ms.No.281, Education (J) Department, dated 25th May, 1985 does not permit the appellant to get appointment on compassionate ground, in our opinion, the appellant is not entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. The said G.O. has been annexed to the counter, which is part of the material papers. Clauses (i) and (iv) of the said G.O. clearly denote that if there is any earning member in the family, no one from the family can be given appointment on compassionate ground. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the mother of the appellant is an earning member, who is earning salary of Rs.9,000/- in addition to Rs.1800/- per month by way of family pension on account of the sad demise of her husband. It is absolutely irrelevant whether the appellant is staying with his mother because there is no provision in the policy that her son staying separately becomes eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. In view of the aforestated policy, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the petition. So far as the questions referred to in the judgments relied upon by the learned Advocate for the appellant are concerned, in our opinion, the said judgments do not render any help to the appellant because one has to look at the policy framed by the employer in the matter of giving compassionate appointment. It is settled legal principle that compassionate appointment can be given only as per the policy framed by the employer and no appointment can be de hors the policy. As stated hereinabove, the policy is to the effect that compassionate appointment cannot be given if there is any earning member in the family. The judgments relied upon by the learned Advocate for the appellant would not render any assistance to the appellant. Incidentally, we may also observe here that initial application for getting compassionate appointment was made by the mother of the appellant and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda had made an enquiry and submitted his report on 10th February, 2006 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad, who had, in turn, addressed a letter dated 15th February, 2006 to respondent No.3 giving the details of the legal heirs of A.Yadaiah (father of the appellant) and the employment of the mother of the appellant. In the said report, it has been impliedly stated that the appellant and his mother are staying at the same place. The aforestated facts clearly denote that just to have sympathy from the Government authorities, the appellant might have started staying separately. In view of the aforestated reasons, in our opinion, the appellant is not entitled to any appointment on compassionate grounds and, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the petition. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. 3rd April, 2008 R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. ….REGISTRAR To 1.The Secretary, Higher Education, Government of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2.The Commissioner and Director of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3.The Regional Joint Director, Intermediate Education, Zone VII, Nampally, Hyderabad. 4.Two copies to Govt. Pleader for Higher Education, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 5.Two C.D. copies. ARS [1] 2005 SCC (L&S) 267 [2] 2006 (2) LLN 302