* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO. 1119 OF 2010 % 07.12.2011 Between: The Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director ..... PETITIONER AND Sri Yala Asirayya @ Asiri Appalaraju and two others .....RESPONDENTS ! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri M.V.S. PRASAD ^Counsel for the respondents: Sri B. BUSHAN RAO < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: AIR 1998 SC 2230 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Appeal is preferred by the first respondent in the Writ Petition, challenging the direction issued by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the Writ Petition instituted by the first respondent herein. The father of the first respondent-writ petitioner worked as Watchman in the third respondent since 1983. In the year 1989 as the father of the first respondent was terminated from service, he raised an industrial dispute in I.D No. 206 of 1990, which was allowed directing the respondents therein to reinstate him with back wages and continuity of service. While so, the father of the first respondent died in harness on 26.5.2009, therefore, he submitted a representation dated 24.7.2009 to appoint him in the Last Grade Service and to release the benefits, but in vain. Hence, he filed W.P. No. 24322 of 2009 and a learned Single Judge of this Court passed an interim order directing the first respondent therein to consider the representation of the first respondent. Pursuant to the said direction, the first respondent therein passed impugned order rejecting the claim of the first respondent herein for compassionate appointment on the ground that the scheme of compassionate appointment issued in G.O.Ms.No. 687 G.A (Ser.A) Department dated 3.10.1973 is applicable to the Government employees and it cannot be extended to the employees of the Sports Authority apart from the fact that the father of the first respondent was only a temporary watchman. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent filed writ petition, and a learned Single Judge allowed the same. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed. The learned Single Judge following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in DIRECTOR OF EDUCLATION (SECONDARY) AND ANOTHER VS. S. PUSHPENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS[1], wherein it was held that the scheme of compassionate appointment is an exception, with an object to provide for the grant of compassionate appointment so as to enable the family of the deceased to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner, rightly allowed the Writ Petition. The learned Judge also directed the appellant herein to consider the case of the first respondent for appointment as temporary watchman so that the family of the first respondent can tide over the crisis, resultant to the death of his father. In view of the above, we see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J DATE: 07.12.2011 KA Note: LR Copy to be marked (Yes) ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies. [1] AIR 1998 SC 2230