IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 32350 OF 2011 Between: Smt.Bobbili Rathanam … Petitioner V/s. The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Commissioner for Co-operation & Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Hyderabad & Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri B. Krishna Counsel for the Respondents : GP for Co-operation for 1 & 2 Sri Deepak Misra for R3 The Court made the following : (Order follows next page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 32350 OF 2011 O R D E R : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Govt.Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned standing counsel for Respondent No.3. 2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the representation dated 20-01-2010 made by the petitioner seeking for compassionate appointment to her son, Pilli Kranti Kumar to any suitable post in the respondent-bank as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for providing him compassionate appointment to any suitable post. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she is the wife of late Pilli Prasasd Rao, who was working as paid secretary in Co-operative Department, Palakonda, Srikakulam district died on 12-09-2009 due to cardiac arrest, leaving behind herself, three daughters, Devarapalli Rajani, Kandi Rupa, Pilli Lavanya and son Pilli Kranti Kumar. It is stated that the petitioner and her children were depending upon her husband, late Pilli Prasad Rao. Her case is that her son, Pilli Kranti Kumar studied B.Tech Engineering, therefore, she made a representation on 20-01-2010 to the second and third respondents seeking for compassionate appointment to her son, Pilli Kranti Kumar but no order is passed. Therefore, she filed the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the wife of late Pilli Prasad Rao, who died during the course of employment due to cardiac arrest leaving behind the petitioner and her children and that there is no means for the survival of the petitioner and her children. Therefore, she made a representation on 20-01-2010 seeking for compassionate appointment. The petitioner is entitled for consideration of compassionate appointment and the respondents have not passed any orders. Hence, she filed the present writ petition. 5. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel submits that having regard to the facts and circumstances, it appears that the petitioner made a representation to the second and third respondent on 20-01-2010. Therefore, the second and third respondents may be directed to consider and dispose of the representation in accordance with law. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel, the only point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for in this writ petition . 7. The case of the petitioner is that she is the wife of late Pilli Prasasd Rao, who died in harness on 12-09-2009, while working as Paid Secretary in Co-operative Department, Palakonda, Srikakulam district. The petitioner is the wife of the deceased employee and she is having a major son, who completed B.Tech. There are no earning members in the family of the petitioner and that her husband performed the marriage of her two elders daughters. As on the date of her husband’s death her entire family was depending on her husband. After the death of her husband, entire family is facing much difficulty to maintain themselves at a subsistence level. Therefore, she submitted a representation on 20- 01-2010 to the second and third respondents seeking for compassionate appointment to her son, Pilli Kranti Kumar. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the respondents 2 and 3 are directed to consider and dispose of the representation dated 20- 01-2010 submitted by the petitioner seeking for compassionate appointment to her son, Pilli Kranti Kumar, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH. 14/12/2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 32350 OF 2011 Circulation No. Date:14-12-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43