THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.6610 OF 2009 Dated: 14.09.2009 Between: P. Prem Kumar … Petitioner And 1. Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad-82, Rep. By its Managing Director and others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.6610 OF 2009 ORDER: The father of the petitioner by name Sekhar was in the service of Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited as a Cook. On an application made by him seeking permission to retire on the ground of medical invalidation, he was referred to the Medical Board and it was certified that he was completely and permanently incapacitated for further service. Consequently by proceedings dated 14.5.2003 the petitioner’s father was permitted to retire from service. By the date of his retirement, he was having another nine (9) years of service. Thereafter, on 16.6.2003 the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment. As the scheme of compassionate appointments to the dependents of the Government Employees who retired on medical invalidation was dispensed with by the Government pursuant to the judgment of this Court dated 12.10.2001 in W.P.No.13489 of 2000 and batch and that the same was also adopted by the AP GENCO Limited, the petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment was not considered. However, subsequently a batch of Civil Appeals, preferred by the aggrieved parties against the judgment in W.P.No.13489 of 2000, were allowed by the Supreme Court by judgment dated 12.8.2008 in V. SIVAMURTHY AND OTHERS v. STATE OF A.P. AND OTHERS[1]. It is not in dispute that in terms of the said judgment Government of A.P. issued G.O.Ms.No.661, General Administration (SER.G) Department, dated 23.10.2008 reviving the scheme of compassionate appointment to the dependents of the Government Employees who retired on medical invalidation. The said G.O. was adopted by the AP GENCO vide G.O.O.No.485/JS (Per)/ 2008, dated 30.12.2008. Having regard to the said subsequent events, the petitioner made a further representation dated 19.1.2009 requesting the respondents to consider his case for compassionate appointment. Alleging that the respondents failed to consider his request, this writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the inaction on the part of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that the scheme revived under G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23.10.2008 as adopted by the A.P. GENCO vide proceedings dated 30.12.2008 is only prospective in operation and therefore the petitioner cannot be extended the said benefit. However the 1st respondent by letter dated 19.1.2009 requested the Government to consider the cases of eighteen (18) eligible dependents of employees retired on medical invalidation in terms of tripartite agreement dated 10.2.2003 as a special case. The said request is still pending before the Government. The name of the petitioner is also included in the said 18 cases. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23.10.2008 under which a scheme of compassionate appointment to the dependents of Government employees who retired on medical invalidation has been revived with directions, runs as under : “After careful consideration, Government issue the following orders on reviving the scheme of compassionate appointments on medical invalidation of Government employee. 1 . This concession of compassionate appointment shall be allowed only in exceptional cases where the appointing authority is satisfied that the condition of the family is indigent and in great distress and when there is no other earning member in the family. The word “family” consists of the members as defined in sub-rule 12 (b) of Rule 50 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. 2. The candidate eligible for appointment under this measure shall be spouse of the Government servant or any one of the dependent children of the employee who retired on medical grounds. 3. The eligible person shall be appointed to the post of Junior Assistant or equivalent post or any other lower post. 4. Applications for appointment from such persons shall be entertained within a period of one year from the date of retirement of Government servant on medical invalidation. 5. The compassionate appointments shall be treated as direct recruitment and temporary appointments to start with. 6. The candidates to be appointed on compassionate grounds under these schemes shall possess the age and other qualifications as per rules in force. 7. The temporary appointment of a spouse or child can be considered for regular appointment without subjecting them to the normal process of recruitment. However; a) A formal notification of vacancy shall be made to the Employment Exchange. b) After filling up the vacancy, the appointing authority will furnish all relevant particulars of the candidate to the Employment Exchange. c) Such appointments should be made under intimation to the Director of Employment and Training excepting in case of High Court.” As could be seen, one of the requirements is that the applications for compassionate appointment from the dependents shall be entertained within one year from the date of retirement of Government service on medical invalidation. Admittedly the petitioner’s father had retired long back on 14.5.2003. Moreover G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23.10.2008 has not made any provision with regard to the claims made during the interregnum i.e., from the date of dispensing with the said scheme vide G.O.Ms.No.202, dated 27.4.2002 till its revival under G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23.10.2008. In the circumstances, the stand taken by the respondents that G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23.10.2008 has only prospective operation cannot be held to be erroneous. However, in the counter–affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that as per the tripartite agreement dated 10.2.2003 the respondents have proposed to consider the cases of 18 eligible dependents of employees who retired on medical invalidation, including the writ petitioner, for compassionate appointment as a special case and accordingly sought permission of the Government vide letter dated 19.1.2009. In the circumstances, it is for the 3rd respondent to consider the proposal made by the respondents 1 and 2 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the proposals made by the respondents 1 and 2 vide letter dated 19.01.2009 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt.14.09.2009 gbs [1] 2008 (5) ALT 17 (SC)