* I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE V.RAMASUBRAMANI AN AND * HON’BLE MS. JUSTI CE J. UMA DEVI + C.R.P.No.2611 of 2018 Date: 12-09-2018 # Betw een: K. Harish, S/o. Late Appa Rao, O/o. The Deputy Director of Fisheries, Kakinada, Kakinada J.C.J. … Petitioner/ defendant/JDR No.4 And 1. M/s. Shriram Transport Finance, Ltd., rep. Through G.P.A. Hodler, P. Ravi Kiran, Divisional Manager, Kakinada. …. Respondent/Claimant/DHR 2. Bobbili Mutyala Raj Kumar, S/o. Challa Rao, D.No.70-70-69/1, Thoga Subba Rao Nagar, Kakinada. 3. Bobbili Naga Jyothi, W/o. Mutyala Raj Kumar, S/o. Challa Rao, D.No.70-70-69/1, Thota Subba Rao Nagar, Kakinada. 4. K. Satyavathi, W/o. Late Appa Rao, D.No.48-7-3, Gollapeta, Jagannadhapuram, Kakinada. 5. K.V.V. Satyanarayana, Prohibition and Excise Constable, O/o. Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise (Enforcement), Rajahmundry. … Respondents/JDRs 1, 2, 3, 5 ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Srikanth representing Mr. Raju Gubbala ^ Counsel for Respondents : Mr. Maheswara Rao Kunchem < GI ST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred VRS, J & JUD, J C.R.P.No.2611 of 2018 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE V.RAMASUBRAMANI AN AND HON’BLE MS. JUSTI CE J. UMA DEVI C.R.P.No.2611 of 2018 ORDER: (per VRS,J.) Aggrieved by an order of attachment of salary, pursuant to an Arbitration Award, the son of the deceased award debtor has come up with the above revision petition. 2. Heard Mr. Srikanth, representing Mr. Raju Gubbala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Maheswara Rao Kunchem, learned counsel for the 1st respondent-award holder. 3. By an award passed on 30.11.2012 in A.R.C.No.701 of 2012, three persons, who were cited as respondents 1, 2 and 5 were made liable to pay a particular sum of money. In other words, no award was passed personally as against respondents 3 and 4. The respondents 3 and 4 were the wife and son of one of the guarantors to the transaction by name Mr. K. Appa Rao, who died even before the initiation of Arbitration proceedings. 4. The petitioner herein was the 4th respondent in the arbitration award. As against him no personal decree was passed. However, the estate of Mr. K. Appa Rao lying in the hands of his wife and son, viz., respondents 3 and 4 before the arbitrator, was made answerable to the award. 5. In other words, the petitioner herein, who was the 4th respondent before the arbitrators, was answerable to the award only to VRS, J & JUD, J C.R.P.No.2611 of 2018 3 the extent of the estate of his father lying with him. According to the petitioner, there is no such estate. 6. However, it appears that late K. Appa Rao was a Government servant and he died in harness. Therefore, the petitioner herein has been granted appointment on compassionate grounds. Treating the appointment granted to the petitioner on compassionate grounds, as equivalent to the estate of his father, the Court below has ordered attachment. 7. But the view taken by the Court below is erroneous. An appointment granted to the legal representatives of a deceased Government servant, who died in harness, cannot be treated as an estate lying in the hands of the son after the appointment. The legal heir is supposed to work and earn his salary. An estate of the deceased father comes to a child without any effort. But it is not so, in respect of an appointment on compassionate grounds. It cannot be treated as an estate. Therefore, the civil revision petition is allowed and the impugned order of attachment insofar as it relates to the salary payable to the petitioner is concerned, is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ V.RAMASUBRAMANI AN, J. _____________ J.UMA DEVI , J. 12th September, 2018. Js VRS, J & JUD, J C.R.P.No.2611 of 2018 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE V.RAMASUBRAMANI AN AND HON’BLE MS. JUSTI CE J. UMA DEVI C.R.P.No.2611 of 2018 (per VRS, J.) 12th September, 2018. Js