IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 15334 of 2009 Between: Mohd. Samiuddin S/o Mohd. Ghousuddin aged 33 years, unemployee ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Registrar (Administration) High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and three others. .....RESPONDENT(S) ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the second respondent-The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad District dated 31.7.2002, in so far as it relates to rejecting the case of the petitioner and the consequential proceedings of the 4th respondent-the Administrative Officer, District and Sessions Court, Nizamabad, dated 22.12.2008 as arbitrary and contrary to G.O.Ms.No. 661, General Administration Department dated 23.10.2008. Brief facts of the case are that due to ill-health, the father of the petitioner submitted an application on 18.4.2000, seeking permission to retire him on medical invalidation and also to appoint the petitioner herein as LDC. It is stated that the petitioner also submitted an application requesting the 2nd respondent –Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad and 3rd respondent-Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan, Nizamabad District to appoint him on compassionate grounds. After that the 2nd respondent through his letter dated 8.8.2000 requested the Superintendent, District Head Quarters Hospital, Nizamabad to examine the father of the petitioner with regard to his health condition. It is stated that subsequently, the Medical Superintendent, District Head Quarters Hospital, Nizamabad through his letter dated 17.1.2001 informed the second respondent that the father of the petitioner is unfit to continue in Government Service and that he may be permitted to retire voluntary on Medical Grounds through letter dated 1.11.2001. Ultimately, the second respondent issued proceedings dated 31.7.2002 permitting the father of the petitioner to retire on medical invalidation with effect from 31.7.2002 and under the same proceedings, the second respondent without giving any reasons simply rejected the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. Hence, being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the present Writ Petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner was deemed to have been retired from service with effect from 1.11.2001, the date on which the District Medical and Health Officer, Nizamabad certified that the petitioner be permitted to retire on medical grounds and thus, the father of the petitioner is having the left over service of more than 5 years and the petitioner is entitled for employment on medical grounds. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in V. SIVAMURTHY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS, wherein the Supreme court at paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 held as under:- “20. The contention of the appellants is that once an application is made by a government servant at a point of time when the left over period of service is more than five years, the medical examination by the Medical Board, recommending process by the District/State Level Committees and consideration and decision by the state government, are not in the hands of the Government servant and therefore neither he nor his dependant should be punished by denying compassionate appointment on account of delays on the part of the authorities. The appellants therefore contend that the eligibility should be determined with reference to date of application and not with reference to date of sanction. But the terms of the scheme are clear. The benefit of compassionate appointment is available to a son/daughter/spouse of a government servant who retires from service on medical invalidation five years before attaining the age of superannuation. Under the scheme therefore, the five year cut off period commences from the date of retirement from service on medical invalidation and not from the date of application by the government servant for retirement on medical invalidation. This was also clarified in the G.M dated 25.6.1999 which forms part of the scheme. The issue is not what is most advantageous to the government servant, but what is the actual term of the scheme. The question is not whether an interpretation which is more advantageous or beneficial to the Government servant should be adopted. The question is whether the policy as it stands which is clear and unambiguous, is so unreasonable or arbitrary or absurd as to invite an interpretation other than the normal and usual meaning. Matters of policy are within the domain of the executive. A policy is not open to interference merely because the court feels that it is not practical or less advantageous for government servants for whose benefit the policy is made or because it considers that a more fairer alternative is possible. Compassionate appointment being an exception to the general rule of appointment, can only be claimed strictly in accordance with the terms of scheme and not by seeking relaxation of the terms of the scheme. The fact that on account of certain delays in processing the application, a government servant may lose the benefit of the scheme, is no ground to relax the terms of the scheme. If in a particular case the processing of an application is deliberately delayed to deny the benefit to the government servant, the inaction may be challenged on the ground of want of bona fides or ulterior motives. But where the time taken to process the application (through medical Board, local/State level Committee and the government) is reasonable, the government servant cannot contend that relief should be extended, even if the left over period is less than five years. Let us give an example. If an application for compassionate appointment on the ground of medical invalidation is given five years and one week before the date of superannuation, obviously the Government servant cannot expect the entire process of scrutiny, medication examination, recommendation and consideration at three levels should be completed in one week. He cannot contend that when he had made the application the left over period was more than five years and therefore his dependant is entitled to appointment. As stated above these are matters of policy and courts will not interfere with the terms of a policy, unless it is opposed to any constitutional or statutory provision or suffers from manifest arbitrariness and unreasonableness. 21. We therefore allow these appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court. We also set aside the orders of the Tribunal though on different grounds. We uphold the validity of the compassionate appointment scheme (contained in the GO dated 30.7.1980, 4.7.1985 and 9.6.1998 as clarified by Memo dated 25.6.1999) providing that the period of five years of `left over service' should be reckoned from the date of issue of the order of retirement on medical invalidation and not from the date of application for retirement on medical invalidation. 22. As the scheme was withdrawn by GM dated 27.4.2002 to give effect to the impugned decision of the High Court, the state government is at liberty to revive the scheme with or without modifications.” Following the above judgment of the Supreme Court, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the authorities to consider the application submitted by the petitioner dated 5.12.2008 for compassionate appointment on medical grounds, and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J Dt. 30.07.2009 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD Copies