IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 20661 of 2008 Between: 1 The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Government of Andra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Kakinada East Godawari District. 3 The Government of A.P., Rept. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Smt. T.Sesha Sai D/o. Late Sri. T.Ramacherdra Rao H.No. 25-6-11, Ganjamvari Street, Kakinada, East godavari District. 2 Smt. T.Suvarchala Devi S/o. Late T.Ramachendra Rao H.No. 25-6-11, Ganjamvari Street, Kakinada, East Godavari Distirct. 3 The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Kakinada, East Godavari Distirct. 4 The Government A.P., Rept. by its Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. ( Respondents 3 and 4 are informal parties no relief is sought against them ) .....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 to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the natur eof writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with the orders dated 20.03.2006 in O.A.No. 833/2003 including all further proceedings relating thereto on the ﬁle of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash or set aside the same by holding as erroneous, and contrary to law. Counsel for the Petitioners : GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking Certiorari to quash the order dated 20-03-2006 in O.A. No.833 of 2003 on the ﬁle of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) by calling the records relating thereto, holding the same as erroneous and contrary to law. One T. Ramachendra Rao worked in Kakinada Municipality as N.M.R. from 21-11-1961. He died on 23-08- 1984 when the proposals for regularization of his services were pending. It is stated that he is entitled to be regularized in terms of G.O. Ms. No.1320, Housing, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, dated 15-12-1981, in consonance with various Government Orders issued in G.O. Ms. No.143, Irrigation (Ser.V) Department, dated 16-03-1984, Government Memo. No.20050/232/PRC.III/85, dated 23-09-1985, G.O. Ms. No.212 I & P Department, dated 29-03-1979 and G.O. Ms. No.130 Irrigation Department, dated 18-03-1981. His wife made several representations for grant of family pension and compassionate appointment, but the same were rejected by the petitioners herein. Questioning their action, she ﬁled O.A. No.833 of 2003 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the order impugned in this writ petition directed the respondents therein to issue orders regularizing the services of late T. Ramachendra Rao from the date anterior to his demise and granting retiral beneﬁts including pension to his survivors, on par with the employees whose services were regularized in terms of G.O. Ms. No.1320, dated 15-12-1981; and to consider the case of the next kin of the deceased employee for compassionate appointment in accordance with the relevant Government orders obtaining at the time of his demise. Aggrieved by the same, the Government Oﬃcials filed the present writ petition. The learned Government Pleader for Services-1 for the petitioners contended that though T. Ramachendra Rao was found eligible in terms of G.O.Ms. No.1320, dated 15-12-1981, he died before issue of orders of regularization and thus he remained as NMR worker only, and in view of the subsequent orders of the Government for deemed regularization of NMR workers in G.O. Ms. No.118 Finance, dated 18-08-1999 read with G.O. Ms. No.212 Finance, dated 22-04-1994, the services of T. Ramachendra Rao, who died on 23-08-1984, cannot be considered to be regularized retrospectively. He also submitted that the concept of compassionate appointment is not prescribed under any rules governing service conditions of the deceased and providing compassionate appointment is only under the Scheme evolved by the State by way of executive instructions issued from time to time, under which, certain eligibility conditions were prescribed for considering the appointments on compassionate grounds and the compassionate appointment now sought to the daughter of T. Ramachendra Rao, who is now aged 40 years, is beyond the scope of the said Scheme. Accordingly, the Government rejected the request of the 1st respondent by Memo. No.346/D2/2007-6 Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, dated 18-04-2008. Against the said order of rejection, Contempt Application No.442 of 2008 was ﬁled before the Tribunal, and the same is not maintainable in view of the orders in G.O. Ms. No.118, dated 18-08-1999. Entitlement of Ramachendra Rao to service regularization and retiral beneﬁts cannot be in doubt and those beneﬁts cannot be denied because of his subsequent death. The Tribunal is, therefore, right in directing regularization of his services and grant of retiral beneﬁts, while it only directed consideration of request for compassionate appointment as per rules. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the fact that though T. Ramachendra Rao served the department for more than 23 years, his services were not regularized on account of the delay on administrative side and also due to his demise when his regularization proposals were pending, ends of justice would be met, if the petitioners are directed to pass appropriate orders for regularization of the services of T. Ramachendra Rao and for grant of retiral beneﬁts including pension, to the respondents, within a period of four weeks from today. In so far as the issue of compassionate appointment is concerned, it is open to the respondents to challenge the Memo. No.3467/D2/2007- 6, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, dated 18-04-2008 by way of separate Original Application, if they are so advised. In view of the subsequent orders of the Government in G.O. Ms. No.118 Finance, dated 18-08-1999, the action of the petitioners in rejecting the compassionate appointment even in the face of the impugned order, does not amount to contempt. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 23-09-2008 Svv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}