THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD W.P.No. 5078 of 2010 Dated. 06–06-2011 Between: Sola Giridhar …Petitioner Vs. The High Court of A.P., Rep., by the Hon’ble Registrar (Administration), High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Dated: 06-06-2011 W.P.No. 5078 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per: GR,J) The petitioner’s father Sri Rosaiah entered service on 23-03-1969 in the judicial unit of Guntur District as Process Server. Being a last grade service employee, he was entitled to superannuate on attaining the age of 60 years and could have retired on superannuation, in the normal course, on 30-06-2010. However, while working as Process Server in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, he developed severe Osteo-- Arthritis and Hyper Tension and applied to the 3rd respondent on 31-08-1999 seeking permission to retire voluntarily by 30- 11-1999. Sri Rosaiah also applied for compassionate appointment in lieu of his retirement in favour of his son – the petitioner herein, who was unemployed, dependent and had passed 10th class, and other dependants of the family needed to be supported on account of his potential unemployment. The 3rd respondent forwarded Rosahaih’s application to the 1st respondent and Rosaiah also appeared before the Regional Medical Board which certified that Roshaiah was suffering from Osteo Arthiritis and Hyper Tension. Other medical certifications on examination of Rosaiah also revealed a similar medical status. A learned Full Bench of this Court by the judgment dated 12-10-2001 in W.P.No. 13489 of 2000 and batch declared the scheme of compassionate appointment issued inter alia in G.O.Ms.No. 504 G.A. (Ser.A) Department dated 30- 07-1980 (for short G.O. 504); G.O.Ms.No. 309, G.A. (Ser.A) Department, dated 04-07-1985 (for short G.O. 309) and G.O.Ms.No. 214, G.A. (Ser. A) Department dated 09-06-1998 (for short G.O. 214) to be invalid, as they transgressed Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, in G.O.Ms.No. 202, G.A. (Ser.A) Department dated 27-04-2002 (for short G.O. 202); G.O.Ms.No. 203, GA (Ser.A) Department dated 27-04-2002 (for short G.O. 203) and G.O.Ms.No. 305, G.A. (Ser.A) Department dated 17-07-2002 (for short G.O. 305), the State issued orders dispensing with the scheme of compassionate appointment to dependents of Government employees who retired on medical invalidation. The ratio of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court was reversed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4210 of 2003 (V. Siva Murthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh). Consequently, the State was legally empowered to engender a scheme of compassionate appointment. In G.O.Ms.No. 661 G.A. (Ser.G) Departent dated 23- 10-2008 (for short G.O. 661) and pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court in V. Suva Murthy (supra), the State revived the scheme of compassionate appointment on medical invalidation of Government employees and set out conditionalities for extension of the benefit of compassionate appointment including in paragraph No. 16 (i)(g) thereof specifying the diseases for which the medical invalidation would be allowed which include (1) Paralysis (i) All 4 limbs; (ii) One side upper limb and lower limb; (iii) Both lower limbs; (2) End stage Renal diseases; (3) End stage Liver diseases; (4) Cancer with metastasis stage or secondaries; (5) Dementia – Mental Disorder; (6) Severe Parkinson disease and (7) Loss of limbs (hands or legs) in case of drivers. G.O.661 also specified the procedures for certification of medical invalidation and constituted District and State Level Committees of Officers for the purpose. In the G.O.Rt.No.4000 G.A. (Ser.G) Department dated 13-08-2009 (for short G.O.Rt.No. 4000), the State not only clarified that the orders in G.O.661 have a prospective effect, but also authorized that since the District Judges are appointing authorities of employees working in the Judicial Department in various Districts and the High Court is the Head of the State Judiciary and all the Subordinate Courts are under the administrative control of the High Court and it is necessary to maintain the independence of judiciary from the executive wing, the Registrar (Administration) shall constitute Committees to consider the reports of the Medical Board and make recommendation regarding the employees of the Judicial Department for their retirement on Medical Invalidation and providing compassionate appointment to their dependents. The 1st respondent, pursuant to the earlier Full Bench decision of this Court (invalidating the scheme of compassionate appointment), rejected the proposals received from several districts including Guntur District regarding extension of the benefit of compassionate appointments. Consequently, the 3rd respondent by the notice dated 14-12-2001 intimated all the addressees including the petitioner’s father – Rosaiah that his application seeking voluntary retirement on medical invalidation grounds and for appointment of a dependent on compassionate basis, have been rejected by the High Court and therefore employees who are on medical leave since long and are seeking retirement on medical invalidation grounds, will be permitted to retire from service without the benefit of compassionate appointments to the dependents or if desirous of continuing in service would be permitted to do so, on production of Medical Fitness Certificates. The petitioner’s father – Rosaiah, in response to the notice dated 14-12-2001 of the 3rd respondent, requested voluntary retirement on the ground that in the present circumstances including health and economic, he seeks voluntary retirement by 31-07-2002. Consequently, the 3rd respondent by the order dated 11-07-2002 acceded to the request of Rosaiah and permitted him to retire from service voluntarily with effect from 31-07-2002 and without the benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner, his son, but with entitlement of all terminal benefits including retirement pension under Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 43 of the A.P Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short 1980 Rules), with a direction to submit pension papers. There is no grievance with regard to the receipt of terminal benefits by the petitioner’s father – Rosaiah. Aggrieved that he was not extended the benefit of compassionate appointment notwithstanding the revival of the scheme of compassionate appointment vide G.O. 661, is this writ petition filed inter alia challenging the 3rd respondent’s order dated 11-07-2002 permitting his father – Rosaiah to retire voluntarily and without the benefit of compassionate appointment for the petitioner. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit setting out the chronology of events already adverted to and substantively contending that inasmuch as G.O. 661, which is the current policy for compassionate appointments, is prospective in nature and is so declared in G.O.Rt. 4000; since the petitioner’s father – Rosaiah was permitted to retire voluntarily under Rule 43 (1) of 1980 Rules, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. The right or privilege of compassionate appointment is not integral to public service. It is the result of a policy decision by the State. If the State does not engender a policy of compassionate appointments, public servants have no claim to seek compassionate appointments for dependents, as of right. In the case on hand, as already noticed, the earlier scheme of compassionate appointments issued in G.Os. 504, 309 and 214 was withdrawn in G.Os. 202, 203 and 305, albeit on account of the declaration of law by the Full Bench of this Court in 2001. Whatever be the reasons for withdrawing the scheme of compassionate appointments, with such withdrawal there is no right to compassionate appointment, since the entitlement to compassionate appointment is the product of an administrative policy and not a right inherent in the nature of public service. The scheme of compassionate appointment was revived only in G.O. 661, which being an executive order, can have only a prospective effect and this verity is also reiterated in the order of the State Government in G.O.Rt. 4000. Evaluation of the medical condition of the petitioner’s father – Rosaiah and on satisfaction of his medical condition and further that such condition falls within the contours of the medical conditions for which medical invalidation and consequent compassionate appointment would be eligible qua paragraph 16(i)(g) of G.O. 661, are matters that must be considered only after the orders in G.O.661 are operative i.e., on and from 23-10-2008. The order permitting the petitioner’s father – Rosaiah to retire voluntarily and without the benefit of compassionate appointment on medical invalidation, was passed by the 3rd respondent on 11-07-2002, at a time when the scheme of compassionate appointments stood withdrawn by the orders issued in G.Os. 202, 203 and 305, all of which were issued before the date Sri Rosaiah, was permitted to retire voluntarily. In view of the prospective nature of the scheme of compassionate appointments issued in G.O. 661 and in view of the further fact that the medical condition of Sri Rosaiah on account of which he sought medical invalidation earlier is not one of the conditions enumerated in paragraph 16 (i)(g) of G.O. 661 (adverted to supra), in the considered view of this Court, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of compassionate appointment. Sri N. Vidya Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri N. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, would urge that since the petitioner’s father – Rosaiah applied on 31-08-1999 for retirement on medical invalidation in the first instance, the administrative scheme prevalent on that date should be taken into consideration; further contended that since G.O. 661 constitutes revival of the scheme of medical invalidation, a scheme of medical invalidation issued since 1980 should be taken as an un-interrupted scheme and the hiatus between the withdrawal of scheme of medical invalidation and its revival in G.O. 661, should be ignored. The above contention does not commend acceptance by this Court. Since the earlier scheme of medical invalidation was specifically withdrawn in 2002, there was no such scheme of medical invalidation in operation. Though G.O. 661 uses the expressions signifying an intention to revive the scheme of compassionate appointments, since G.O. 661 is an administrative policy, it is prospective in nature and this is reiterated in the Government Orders in G.O.Rt. 4000. Since the petitioner’s entitlement to medical invalidation must now be considered qua the conditionalities specified in G.O. 661 and since the petitioner’s father does not fulfill the medical requirements specified in paragraph No. 16(i) (g) of G.O. 661, he is not, though unfortunately, entitled to the benefit of compassionate appointment. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM __________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Dated: 06-06-2011 Pvks/*