IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.25912 of 2001 Between: A. Bhagyamma ……PETITIONER(S) a n d The Government of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endts.II) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others ……RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.25912 of 2001 ORDER: Having regard to the relief claimed, the point that arises for determination in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ, order or direction from this Court to respondents to appoint her as Sweeper on compassionate grounds in the third respondent temple in one of the existing vacancies of the said post of Sweeper after setting aside the orders of the first respondent rejecting her case for that relief. 2. The case of the petitioner which gives rise to the above point is this. The petitioner’s husband late A.Sekhar worked as NMR worker in the Electrical Section of the third respondent temple from 1989 (exact date of appointment not given) till he died on 20.05.1996 while in service. The petitioner says that there are no other persons in her family to look after her maintenance and that she has also got a child. Her version is that she made several requests to the respondents to appoint her for the post of Sweeper again as an NMR worker on compassionate grounds as such compassionate appointment is permissible under the scheme framed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.118 Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Department dated 18.08.1999. The other details are not necessary but it would sufficient to note that ultimately the Government i.e. the first respondent in their Memo No.56088/Endts.II(2)/99-5 dated 31.05.2001 informed the Commissioner, Endowments, that the petitioner’s case for appointment as Sweeper cannot be considered by relaxing the rules. The version of the petitioner is that subsequently her advocate also made a representation but the Joint Secretary concerned to the Government by communication dated 09.07.2001 informed the Advocate that her case cannot be considered. Questioning this action of the respondents, she brought this Writ Petition pleading that she is entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds to the post of Sweeper following the death of her husband in terms of the scheme framed in G.O.Ms.No.118 Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Department dated 18.08.1999 mentioned supra. 3. The petitioner elaborating her contention has stated that her husband was eligible for being regularized as NMR worker in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance & Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 22.04.1994 and also G.O.(P).No.112 dated 23.07.1997 and that for some administrative reasons he could not be regularized and unfortunately for her he died on 28.05.1996 without being regularized and, therefore, in terms of the above G.Os. she is entitled to compassionate appointment. 4. The Court record placed before me does not show that respondents have filed any counter, but since the matter can be disposed of on the above G.Os. referred to by the petitioner, this Writ Petition has been taken up for disposal after hearing the petitioner’s counsel. 5. Regarding the relief claimed by the petitioner, her learned counsel has mainly relied upon the terms of G.O.Ms.No.118 Finance and Planning dated 18.08.1999. A perusal of the terms of this G.O. which is dated 18.08.1999 shows that earlier there was no compassionate appointment scheme for the dependants of the deceased daily wage or NMR workers and that this scheme was extended to them also by the said G.O. The criteria for giving such compassionate appointments has also been prescribed in the said G.O. The main criteria is that the deceased NMR worker must have been fully eligible for regularization under Section 7 of the A.P. (Regulation of Appointment to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (A.P. Act No.2/1994), which came into force on 25.11.1993 read with G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Department dated 22.04.1994 and G.O.(P).No.112 Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Department dated 23.07.1997 but who for administrative reasons was not regularized by the date of his death. One additional requirement is that there must be an existing vacancy. This G.O.(P).No.212 applies to part-time workers and is not applicable here. 6. A.P. Act No.2/1994 and the above mentioned G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 are relevant. According to the 1st proviso to Section 7 of the A.P. Act No.2/1994 and G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 an NMR worker for being regularized in service must have been in service for a continuous minimum period of five years as on 25.11.1993 which is the cut off date mentioned in the said statutory provision and the G.O. In the present case the version of the petitioner is that her husband was appointed as NMR worker in the third respondent temple in 1989 but she did not give his exact date of appointment. Even assuming for a moment that he was appointed on 01.01.1989 still it may be noted that he did not complete five years of continuous service as on 25.11.1993 which is the cut off date prescribed in the above G.O. Unfortunately he died on 20.05.1996. Thus, he was not eligible for regularization as on 25.11.1993 or any subsequent date. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner was in the course of arguments specifically asked about the above position and explain it, but there was no proper reply and he only relied upon G.O.Ms.No.118 referred to supra. He then relied upon the proceedings in Rc.No.A2/65949/94 dated 08.05.1997 of the second respondent i.e. the Commissioner of Endowments through which he regularized two NMR workers namely Sri B.Sudhakar and Sri T.Balaji Singh, helpers along with two others and pointed out that the above two persons were appointed along with petitioner’s husband and therefore the petitioner’s husband was also eligible for regularization and consequently the scheme in G.O.Ms.No.118 applies to the petitioner also. It is difficult to accept this contention. It may be noted that a perusal of the copy of the above proceedings dated 08.05.1997 of the second respondent would show that the above two persons along with two others were regularized on the ground that they had answered the criteria in G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994. As already mentioned supra, the petitioner could not give the date of appointment of her husband and her plea is that he was appointed in 1989. As already mentioned supra even assuming that the petitioner’s husband was appointed on 01.01.1989 still he cannot be said to have completed five years by 25.11.1993. Thus, it follows that the petitioner’s husband was not eligible for regularization under the above G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 and he unfortunately died on 20.05.1996. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not bring to my notice any other provision under which she can be granted the relief claimed in the writ petition. 8. Accordingly, it follows that the first respondent is justified in refusing to give an appointment to the petitioner for the post of Sweeper though there is an existing vacancy. Accordingly, the point is decided against the petitioner and this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 9h December 2010 CVRK