IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 18575 of 2009 Between: A.Vijaya Krishna . .Petitioner And Chief Rationing Officer, (Twin Cities), S.P.Road, Secunderabad and another. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO.18575 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the representation dated 17.08.2009 submitted by the petitioner for transfer of authorization as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for transfer of authorization of the father of the petitioner in respect of fair price shop No.823, situated at New Bhoiguda, Secunderabad into petitioner name. 2) The brief facts are that the father of the petitioner is the authorized fair price shop dealer of shop No.823, situated at New Bhoiguda, Secunderabad and he distributed the essential commodities to the card holders in accordance with the provisions of relevant Control Orders since the date of his appointment. While the said authorization is renewed upto 2010, the father of the petitioner died on 05.05.2009 and as the petitioner has to look after the entire family, he requested the authorities to transfer the said authorization in his name, so that the family can come out of compassion. He further requested the authorities to permit him to continue to distribute the essential commodities as per the authorization temporarily as provided for under G.O.Ms.No.53, dated 06.10.2003. However, as the respondents are not permitting the petitioner to continue as the fair price shop dealer either on temporary or on permanent basis, he approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. 3) The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, D.Pramada, is that the authorities are having power to permit the petitioner to continue as the fair price shop dealer on temporary basis as provided for in G.O.Ms.No.53, dated 06.10.2003. It is her further submission that the very authorization is given to the father of the petitioner enabling him to eke out his livelihood and when the father dies, the son’s case if qualified shall also be considered on compassionate grounds. 4) The learned Assistant Government Pleader in this context has drawn my attention to sub-clause 12 of clause 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing, Storage and Regulation) Order, 2008 (for brevity ‘Control Order 2008’) and submitted that the authorization cannot be transferred. The appointment made on the compassionate grounds is entirely different and the same cannot be made applicable to the cases like the authorization of the fair price shop dealers. 5) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 6) The object underlying compassionate employment is to enable the family of deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread-earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. The object is not to give a member of such family and a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is to be made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Such a provision makes a departure from the general provisions of making appointment by following prescribed procedure. It is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions. An exception cannot subsume the main provision and thereby nullify the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred by the main provision. Care has, therefore, to be taken that a provision for grant of compassionate employment, which is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions, does not unduly interfere with the right of other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek employment against the post which would have been available to them, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the dependant of a deceased employee. 7) However, there is a clear prohibition in sub-clause 12 of clause 5 of the Control Order, 2008 reads as under. “In the event of death of the Fair Price shop dealer/nominated Retailer/Hawker, the authorization issued shall stand cancelled and the legal heirs of the deceased are not entitled to transfer of authorization” 8) In the light of the said prohibition also, the authorization cannot be given to the petitioner. As and when a notification is issued, it is always open to the petitioner to submit an application in competing with other applicants to the said notification and I am sure the respondents may consider his case sympathetically. 9) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. However, the respondent authorities, may consider the case of the petitioner as Fair Price shop dealer on temporary basis till a regular notification is issued. As and when a regular notification is issued and the petitioner may also submit an application seeking appointment as fair price shop dealer and the same may be considered, provided he fulfils the requisite qualifications. No order as to costs. __________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) September 7, 2009 Note: Issue C.C. by two days. (B/o) KSH