IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 6940 of 1999 Between: T. Pochaiah S/o. T.Chittari in L.I.C. of India, R/o Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Life Insurance Corporation of India Rep. by Zonal Manager, South Central Zone, Hyderabad. 2 The Sr. Divisional Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India Divisional Office, 5/9/21, Secretariat Road, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the request of the petitioner for appointment of his son on compassionate grounds, as per Regulation 19(3) of LIc of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 inspiete of permitting the petitioner for Voluntary retirement on medical grounds with effect from 1-2-99, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law; and further direct the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner's son in any suitable post in L.I.c. of India, on compassionate grounds forthwith and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.KANAKAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.V.SURESH The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.6940 of 1999 ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is for the petitioner’s son to be appointed in his place consequent upon the petitioner’s voluntary retirement from service. While the petitioner claims that he sought voluntary retirement on medical grounds, the respondents would contend that his request for voluntary retirement was not on medical grounds, but otherwise. Petitioner, in his letter dated 2.11.1998, informed the Senior Divisional Manager of the respondent – Corporation that he would be completing 55 of years age on 6.1.1999, that he had some domestic problems coupled with health problems, (due to permanent physical disability), and that he had decided to take voluntary retirement from service from 1st February, 1999. The petitioner requested that he be allowed to retire from service from the above date. While informing the Corporation that he was the only earning member of his family and that his son Sri T.Omprakash, aged 19 years, had failed in the X Class examination, the petitioner requested that his son be appointed in a suitable post. He highlighted the unblemished service of 49 years put in by him with the L.I.C. as the basis for his request for appointment of his son on compassionate grounds. In reply thereto, the respondent, vide letter dated 4.12.1998, informed the petitioner that his request for voluntary retirement was being examined under Regulation 19-2A of the L.I.C. of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 and that his request for voluntary retirement was under consideration. The petitioner was asked to note that it was not possible for the Corporation to consider his request for appointing his son on compassionate grounds. Thereafter on 23.1.1999 the petitioner was informed that his request for voluntary retirement had been considered and he was permitted to retire with effect from 1.2.1999 as per Regulation 19-2A(b)(i) of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The petitioner having been informed on 4.12.1998 itself, that his request for appointment of his son on compassionate grounds could not be considered, could well have withdrawn his request for retirement if, indeed, he had sought for voluntary retirement on medical grounds. Having kept quiet after receipt of the letter dated 4.12.1998 for nearly two months before he received the proceedings dated 23.1.1999 informing him that his request, for voluntary retirement with effect from 1.2.1999, was accepted, it is not open to the petitioner to now turn around and contend that, since his request for voluntary retirement was on medical grounds, his son ought to have been appointed in accordance with the regulations of the Corporation. While Voluntary retirement on medical grounds falls under Regulation 19(3) of the Regulations applicable to the Corporation, Regulation 19-2A relates to voluntary retirement otherwise than on medical grounds. Further, as is evident from the counter affidavit, Regulation 19.3 cannot be invoked by an employee suo-motu but has to be initiated by the employer i.e., the Corporation. It is only when the Corporation considers it inexpedient to continue a person, who is medically unfit, in service would the Corporation take action under Regulation 19(3) to permit him to voluntarily retire on medical grounds in which event alone would the Corporation be required to provide employment, for the dependent of such an employee, on compassionate grounds. Since, in the present case, the petitioner had sought voluntary retirement, which would only arise under Regulation 19-2A, the statutory regulation applicable to the Corporation do not enable appointment on compassionate grounds. Even otherwise appointment of dependents, of employees who were retired on medical invalidation, has been held to fall foul of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. (Govt. of A.P, GAD, Hyderabad v. D.Gopaiah[1]) Viewed from any angle, the relief sought in this writ petition cannot be granted. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________ 22-2-2008 asp [1] 2001(6) ALT 553 (FB)