THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.23550 of 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) The Government questions the order of the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, dated 12-02-2009, made in O.A.No.9961 of 2002. The said O.A. was filed by the respondent herein questioning Government Memo No.32789/OP.I/A2/2001-5, dated 28-08-2002, rejecting her request for appointment on compassionate grounds on the ground that her father N.Balaiah committed suicide and the appointment of the dependents in the suicide case is against the Rules of Government. The father of the respondent worked as Chowkidar in the Home Department and he was suffering with acute depression and psychiatric problem and due to which, he committed suicide on 05- 12-2000 and he was the sole bread winner to his family. After his death, a request was made to the Department on 06-02-2001, to consider the claim of the applicant in a suitable post. The said request was rejected by the Government vide its Memo No.32789/OP.I/A2/2001-5, dated 28-02-2002. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant filed the present O.A. It is not in dispute that the father of the respondent-applicant worked as Chowkidar in the Home Department and while he was in service, he committed suicide because of mental disorder and depression on 05-12-2000. The Tribunal vide its order, dated 12-02-2009, held that under G.O.Ms.No.687, dated 03-10-1987, there is no prohibition for appointment of the dependents of the deceased Government employee, who committed suicide, and the Circular Memo No.41758/Ser.G/2006-2, dated 19-07-2007, issued by the Government clarified that even the cases of the dependents of the deceased Government employees, who committed suicide, also have to be considered for compassionate appointments and accordingly, in the light of the aforesaid G.O. and in view of the Government Circular Memo No.41758/Ser.G/2006-2, dated 19-07-2007, allowed the said O.A. It is evident that the rejection order, dated 28-02-2002, rejecting the request of the applicant for compassionate appointment, was immediately questioned before the Tribunal in the year 2002 itself and the Tribunal, on 07-01-2003, while admitting the O.A., made the following order:- “Admit. Interim Relief: The impugned Government Memo No.32789/OP.I/A2/2001, dated 28-08-2002 is suspended and there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for appointment in a suitable post on compassionate grounds.” The said interim order was made absolute and the said O.A. was finally disposed of. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was a delay on the part of the applicant in approaching the Tribunal. But, in spite of the Tribunal granting interim order on 07-01-2003, the Government has not considered the claim of the applicant and they are waiting for final out come of the O.A. We have perused the order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.687, dated 03-10-1977, which provides permanent relief to the deserving bereaved members of the family of the deceased Government servant. As per the aforesaid order, the candidates eligible for appointment under the scheme of compassionate appointment shall be the spouse of the deceased Government servant or the dependent child of the deceased Government employee, who died in harness, and there being no other earning member in the family. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the applicant is one of the children of the deceased employee. The deceased died leaving behind him his wife and two daughters and the dependent family desires appointment of the applicant on compassionate grounds. The aforesaid G.O. does not distinguish the circumstances under which the dependents of the deceased Government employees are not entitled for compassionate appointment. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the father of the applicant died in harness or not? The father of the applicant suffered with mental disorder and depression and he died because of illness only and he was not in normal stage when died. In fact, in view of the said suffering, the Government has not taken any action for his dismissal or any disciplinary action. Therefore, he continued in service. If that be so, he died in harness only because of the mental illness. The illness can be of physical or mental, but the fact remains that he died because of mental illness. It is not the case of the Department that the deceased committed suicide with an intention to get a job to his dependents. If that be so, we are of the opinion that as per the said G.O., it cannot be said that the respondent is not entitled for any compassionate appointment. Further, the Circular memo only clarifies the real intention of the Government in issuing the aforesaid G.O. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal had rightly allowed the said O.A. However, learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners submits that Circular Memo No.41758/Ser.G/2006-2, dated 19-07-2007, is only prospective but not retrospective. We are of the opinion that the said Circular Memo is only clarification to G.O.Ms.No.687, dated 03-10-1987, and we are of the opinion that even the said G.O. does not prohibit compassionate appointments even in respect of the dependants of the deceased employees, who committed suicide because of mental illness. The present O.A. is pending from 2002 onwards. In fact, there was a specific positive direction to consider the case of the applicant and, therefore, it cannot be said that it is an old case and it amounts to reopening of the old case, as the rejection order, dated 28-08-2002, rejecting the request of the applicant was sub judice before the Tribunal. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we do not see any merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dated: 03-11-2009 Prv