IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 21182 of 2005 Between: Smt.Muthyala Adilaxmi, W/o.Late M.Surender, R/o.H.No.19-118, Nekkonda Road Post & Village, Narsampet Mandal, District Warangal. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt of A.P., rep by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 2 Director General and Inspector General of Police A.P. Lakdi-Ka-Pul, Hyderabad. 3 Dy.Inspector General of Police, Warangal range, Warangal. 4 Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar, Karimnagar district. .....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 a writ order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for the appointment to the petitioner's unemployed son into Govt.Service on compassionate grounds and declaring the action of the respondents not considering under compassionate grounds is illegal, bad and unjust, arbitrary and Violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and further held that the order of the Tribunal order or orders dt.31-08- 2005 in OA.No.2033/05 not considering the compassionate employment as contrary to law and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.JOGRAM TEJAVAT Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.21182 of 2005 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 31-8-2005 passed in O.A.No.2033 of 2005 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and further seeking direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioner’s son for appointment on compassionate grounds. 2. The details relevant and necessary for deciding the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner herein is the applicant in the above O.A. The applicant’s husband, while working as Armed Reserve Police Constable, was dismissed from service on 4-3-1987 on the ground of desertion and later, he died on 02-9-1998. The petitioner filed a representation seeking to set aside the major penalty of dismissal from service imposed on her husband and the Government set aside the same vide G.O.Rt.No.365 dated 29-11-2000. Thereafter, she made several representations for release of pensionary benefits to her and compassionate appointment to her son. The official respondents contended that the applicant has not produced the required documents for release of pensionary and other terminal benefits and that the applicant’s husband has not expired while in service and her son is not eligible for compassionate appointment. The Tribunal after considering the rival submissions held that the applicant is entitled to pensionary benefits, but denied the relief of compassionate appointment for her son. Hence, this writ petition is filed by the applicant. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had submitted the death certificate and all the required documents, to the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar and thereafter, the terminal benefits were released. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner’s husband died during the pendency of the appeal and ultimately, the appeal was allowed, therefore the petitioner’s son is entitled to compassionate appointment. 5. Learned Government Pleader contended that the petitioner has to make a representation to the authority concerned by filing necessary proof of death and other material documents, with a request for compassionate appointment for her son. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both the counsel. In the instant case, the official respondents themselves have admitted that the petitioner is entitled to pensionary and other terminal benefits due to the death of her husband. However, it is the case of respondents that the petitioner has not produced original documents viz., death certificate, legal heir certificate and other relevant documents. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that necessary documents have been submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar, and thereafter the pension and other terminal benefits were released. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the difficulties pleaded in the writ affidavit, the petitioner is directed to make a detailed representation to the competent authority indicating all the circumstances and also allowing of appeal, and the competent authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioner’s son for compassionate appointment objectively within a period of six weeks from the date the petitioner chooses to make the representation. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 10-07-2008 bsc