THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P.No.8552 of 2008 Between N. Thimmappa .. petitioner and The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh rep. By its Secretary, Law and Legal Affairs Dept Hyderabad and others .. respondents. Counsel for the petitioner : Counsel for the respondents : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P.8552 of 2008 Oral Order : ( Per Sri GM, J ) This is an unfortunate case where the petitioner’s plea for absorption of the service was unfulfilled and he was thrown out of service and became over aged. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Attender on temporary basis in the Court of Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad on 3-3-1990. Though he was initially appointed on temporary basis for a period of three months, later by an order dated 1-9-1990, he was appointed on regular basis duly modifying the earlier order of temporary appointment. Later he was sent on deputation to the Government Pleader’s office, with effect from 17-4-1990. When the respondents sought to terminate the services of the petitioner he approached this Court and obtained interim orders and that finally this Court directed the petitioner to make a representation for consideration of his case. Thus, in the year 2001, the Government issued orders dated 4-5-2001 to the effect that the deputation of the petitioner to the Government Pleader’s office is irregular and not bound by the rules. Therefore, the Government decided not to absorb the petitioner and the Government Pleader’s office was directed that the services of the petitioner on deputation basis may be terminated and he should be repatriated to his parent Department. The said orders of termination were challenged in O.A.No.5502 of 2004. The Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the O.A. Hence, this Writ Petition. A detailed counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents inter alia, narrating the events that led to filing of the writ petitions before this Court including the order of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.9951 of 2001. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the entire material made available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in H.C. PUTTUSWAMY v. HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF KARNATAKA ( AIR 1991 SC 295) vehemently contended that the succeeding presiding officer in the court of the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad in an erroneous view of the matter has terminated the services of the petitioner as Attender and though this Court on earlier occasion has set aside the termination order and directed the petitioner to make representation, another person was appointed in that vacancy and therefore his services were terminated, the fact remains is that the petitioner went on deputation basis to the Government Pleader’s office and he worked for more than ten years and therefore his case needs to be considered favourably. As observed above, the case of the petitioner is an unfortunate one. He was appointed on 3-3- 1990 and his services were also regularised. Having perused the entire material available on record, it is seen from the records that his services were unilaterally terminated without following the due process of being heard. Be that as it may, since the petitioner went on deputation to the Government Pleader’s office and during that period his services were terminated and that the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad refused to admit the petitioner into service in view of the termination orders of the Government, the fact that the petitioner is working for more than 10 years in the office of the Government Pleader and he became age barred to get suitable employment elsewhere, ends of justice will met if a direction is given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner favourably for absorption of his the services sympathetically, on humanitarian grounds. It is ordered accordingly. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. __________ GM, J _________ BSSR, J Kk/Date : 11-9-2009 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WP No.8552 of 2008 11-9-2009