IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 22903 of 2009 Between: Mohd. Razia Begum ..... PETITIONER AND The Zonal Manager, Food Corporation of India, HADDOWS Road, Chennai and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 22903 OF 2009 ORDER : The husband of the petitioner herein by name Mohammad Jaffar who was working as Assistant Grade-II in the Food Corporation of India had died on 07.06.2000 while in service. The petitioner made an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. By order dated 13.10.2003, the 1st respondent called upon the petitioner to submit certain documents and the same were furnished by the petitioner on 27.10.2003. However, the 2nd respondent by order dated 03.07.2006 rejected the petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment on the ground that the applications which are more than three years old cannot be considered. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. It is to be noticed that similarly situated persons whose claims for compassionate appointments were rejected on the very same ground that the applications were more than three year old, filed W.P.No.18119 of 2006 and batch and the said writ petitions were allowed by a common order dated 15.09.2008 holding that the respondents had adopted a pedantic approach in rejecting the applications of the petitioners. Accordingly the impugned orders were set aside and the respondents were directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners therein by providing compassionate appointments after issuing a notice to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders as per the scheme within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The fact that the petitioner herein is also similarly situated has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation. It is also brought to my notice that pursuant to the common order passed by this Court in W.P.No.18119 of 2006 and batch fresh orders have also been passed by the Corporation. Accordingly, following the order in W.P.No.18119 of 2006 and batch, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in terms of the order in W.P.No.18119 of 2006 and batch as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 17.11.2009 Ivd