IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 1931 of 2008 Between: The Tirupathi Urban Development Authority, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, represented by its Vice Chairman ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Smt.S.Ramani, Working as Attender in Tirupathi Urban Development Authority, O/o. TUDA Tirupathi, Chittoor District 2 The State of AP., represented by its Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the records relating to and connected with the judgment of the Hon`ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dated 30.7.2007 in OA.No.7107 of 2003 and quash the same by holding as illegal, and erroneous. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI. JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO :1931 of 2008 ORDER: (Per the Honourable Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order, dated 30.7.2007 in O.A.No.7107 of 2003. The 1st respondent herein is the applicant before the tribunal and she filed the O.A. seeking a direction to the respondents to continue her as attender on the ground that she was appointed as an attender on compassionate grounds vide proceedings dated 12.10.1998 and while so, the Government issued a show cause notice dated 14.10.2003 to explain as to why her services cannot be terminated, for which, she submitted her explanation, but however, she was terminated from service vide proceedings dated 27.10.2003. The tribunal having observed that the applicant was appointed on compassionate grounds as per the scheme introduced by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.687, dated 3.10.1977 and thereafter, on the ratification sought for by the 2nd respondent to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment to the Urban development Authorities also, the 1st respondent refusing to ratify the action of the 2nd respondent issued direction to terminate the services of the applicant without mentioning the reasons as to the non-extension of the said benefit, allowed the O.A. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is preferred by the 2nd respondent-writ petitioner. Heard the learned G.P. and perused the entire material available on record as well as the order impugned. Before going into the merits of the case, it is pertinent to note that while admitting the O.A., the tribunal granted interim relief suspending the termination proceedings dated 27.10.2003. Pursuant to the interim directions issued by the tribunal, the applicant is continuing in service. On a perusal of the material available on record, it is apparent that the applicant has been appointed as an attender on compassionate grounds giving relaxation as to the educational qualification, vide proceedings dated 12.10.1998. Subsequently, she was terminated vide proceedings dated 27.10.2003 on the ground that the benefit of compassionate appointment to the Urban Development Authorities under the G.O.Ms.No.687 cannot be extended. The appointment of the applicant is nothing but a measure of security to the bereaved family. In a case of this nature, the Government as a social security and to provide minimum needs to the bereaved family, issued the G.O., introducing the scheme of compassionate appointment. Therefore, the extension of the same benefit cannot be discriminated. In this view of the matter and in view of the nature of the appointment given to the applicant, We have no hesitation to hold that the order of the tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity and the same needs no interference and the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. NO order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ______________________ Justice G.Chandraiah Dated:17.3.2008 Gurc/nn THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI. JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 1931 of 2008 (Division Bench Order delivered by Honourable Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) 17/03/2008