HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO W.P.No. 22655 of 2010 Date: 21-01-2011 Between The State of A.P. and others ……….. Petitioners and K. Ravi and another …….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO W.P.No. 22655 of 2010 ORDER: (Per GM, J) The State has preferred this writ petition challenging the validity and legality of the order, dated 13-08-2009 passed in O.A.No.7212 of 2007 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’). 2. The brief facts are that the applicant-first respondent herein, being the nephew of one P.V.N. Prasad Rao of Medhavaram Village, Ontimitta Mandal, Kadapa District, claims to be his dependent. The lands and house of the said Prasada Rao were submerged under Somasila project. The Special Deputy Collector(LA) has passed an award and issued submergible area certificate to that effect. The applicant-first respondent herein applied for employment on 05-09- 1987 as per G.O.Ms.No.98, Irrigation (Proj. Wing) Department, dated 15-04-1986, which provides for employment to the displaced persons under the project or their dependents. The applicant-first respondent herein has also submitted a representation on 05-11-1992 to the District Collector, and the District Collector through the letter, dated 21- 11-1992 has forwarded the same to the Superintending Engineer, H.N.S.S. Circle, Kadapa, to take necessary action. As no action has been taken, the applicant-first respondent herein made another representation to the District Collector, who forwarded the same to the Chief Engineer, Telugu Ganga Project, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District, but the applicant-first respondent herein was not given any appointment, and therefore, initially he filed O.A.No.1417 of 2007 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, through the order, dated 12-03- 2007, disposed of the O.A. directing the Chief Engineer, Telugu Ganga Project, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District, to consider the case of the applicant-first respondent herein and pass appropriate orders taking into consideration G.O.Ms.No.98. The third respondent therein, while considering the case of the applicant-first respondent herein, observed that only the son, daughter and wife are the dependents and the applicant-first respondent herein, being the nephew, is not a dependant of the said displaced person and, accordingly, rejected his claim through the orders in Lr.No.CE/TGP/SKHT/C-3/8115/2001/ Vol.II/2007-1, dated 06-03-2007. Challenging the said orders, dated 06-03-2007, the applicant-first respondent herein filed the present O.A.No.7212 of 2007 before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. 3. The Tribunal, after hearing the counsel and considering the material on record, disposed of the O.A. through the order, dated 13-08-2009, directing the respondents-petitioners herein to consider the case of the applicant-first respondent herein for appointment in any suitable post as per G.O.Ms.No.98, taking into consideration his eligibility, seniority and according to his qualification, in the quota meant for dependants of displaced persons under Somasila project and pass appropriate orders within a period of eights weeks from that day. Aggrieved by the same, the State preferred this writ petition. 4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.98, only the son, daughter or spouse of the displaced person can be provided with employment and the first respondent herein, being the nephew of the displaced person, does not come under the definition of the dependant and not eligible for appointment as per G.O.Ms.No.98, and therefore, the impugned order cannot sustain and the same is liable to be set aside, as the case of the first respondent herein has been already considered in terms of G.O.Ms.No.98, and rejected, in terms of the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1417 of 2007, dated 12-03-2007. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant-first respondent submitted that as per the award and submergible area certificate issued by the Special Deputy Collector (LA), the applicant-first respondent herein is the dependent of Sri P.V.N. Prasada Rao, and the said Prasada Rao also gave a notarized affidavit that he has no issues and the applicant-first respondent herein is his virtual son and dependent on him, and therefore, he is the sole dependent of P.V.N. Prasada Rao and there is no other earning member in the family and hence, the Tribunal has rightly directed the petitioners herein to consider the case of the first respondent herein as per G.O.Ms.No.98, and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 6. It is the case of the applicant-first respondent herein that as per the award and submergible certificate, he is the dependent of the said P.V.N. Prasada Rao and that after submergence, the said Prasada Rao is residing along with him at Kavaiakuntla village of Porumamilla Mandal. The applicant-first respondent herein further states that his name has been included in the list of persons seeking employment as dependents, and the said Prasada Rao gave a notarized self declaration that he has no issues and the applicant is his virtual son and dependent on him. Though the applicant-first respondent herein has brought to the notice of the authorities about his dependency and poverty, no action has been taken. 7. The Tribunal has observed that in the first instance, the name of the applicant-first respondent was recommended by the Collector and his name was also shown in the list at Sl.No.272 sent by the Collector to the Chief Engineer as per G.O.Ms.No.98. But the only ground on which the request of the applicant-first respondent herein was negated by the respondents-petitioners herein is that he does not come under the definition of ‘dependant’ under G.O.Ms.No.98, as he being the nephew of the said Prasada Rao. The Tribunal further observed that it is not denied by the respondents that the said Prasada Rao, whose lands were brought by the Government for construction of Somasila Project, has no issues and so, he brought up the applicant and he is looking after the well beings of the applicant-first respondent herein since his childhood. The Tribunal specifically observed that the definition of the word ‘dependant’ in the ‘DK Revised and updated. Illustrated Oxford Dictionary’ is ‘a person who relies on another esp. for financial support’, and as the applicant-first respondent herein is being brought up by the said Prasada Rao, and as the Prasada Rao has no issues, the applicant-first respondent herein can also be defined as a dependant as he is the totally dependant on the said Prasada Rao, whose lands were acquired for construction of Somasila Project. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the respondents- petitioners herein to consider the case of the applicant-first respondent herein for appointment in any suitable post as per G.O.Ms.No.98. 8. After hearing the counsel on either side and after perusal of the impugned order, we are of the view that the Tribunal has passed a well reasoned order with specific observations and we do not find any ground to differ with the same. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the time granted by the Tribunal to consider the case of the applicant-first respondent herein stands extended by eight more weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________ K.S. APPA RAO, J Date: 21-01-2011 YCR