IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7837 of 1999 Between: 1 Koka Padmavathi W/o.Koka Harish R/o.12-10-246 Brahmin Basti, Namalagundu, Secunderabad' 2 Koka Srinagesh S/o.Koka Harish R/o.12-10-246 Brahmin Basti, Namalagundu, Secunderabad' ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Union of India rep.by its Secretary Department of Research and Development Ministry of Defence, Government of India New Delhi 2 The Director General of Research and Development Directorate of Personnel/RD/Pers-9 "B" Wing Sena Bhavan, Ministry of Defence DHQ, PO, New Delhi - 110 011 3 The Director Govt. of India Ministry of Defence, Research and Development Organisation Defence Electronics Research Laboratory (DRRL) Hyderabad-500 005 4 The Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, rep.by its Registrar .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, direction or order, more especially a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the records in OA.No.1027/1998 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash its order Dt.10/02/1999 and consequently declare the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for compassionate appointment as illegal, arbitrary and pass such other order. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.PANDURANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : ORDER :: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WP No.7837 of 1999 ORDER :: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) This writ petition is filed against the order dated 10-2-1999 passed in OA No.1027 of 1998 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The applicants in the said OA are the petitioners herein. The petitioners filed the said OA seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the case of 2nd petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds on the ground that their family is in dire financial and indigent circumstances. 2. Facts stated are the deceased (K. Harish), husband and father of petitioner 1 and 2 respectively, while working as CASO in respondents’ Laboratory died in harness. It is stated that the petitioners were paid an amount of Rs.2,11,999/- as retirement benefits. The petitioners made a representation on 3-6-1994 seeking for compassionate appointment to the 2nd petitioner, son of the deceased who died in harness or to the 1st petitioner wife of the deceased, but the same was rejected by the respondents by order dated 25-1-1995. Questioning the same, the petitioners filed OA No.686 of 1995, and the said OA was disposed of by order dated 16-6-1995 directing the respondents to re-examining the case of the petitioners. But again the case of the petitioners was considered and rejected by order dated 11-9-1995. Thereafter the 2nd petitioner again made similar representations to the respondents and the same was rejected. Again the petitioners filed OA No.316 of 1996 seeking for the self same relief. The said OA was disposed of directing the respondents to have a fresh look of the case de-novo and to pass appropriate orders thereon. Thereafter, the respondents again by the order dated 24-6-1998, impugned in the present OA, rejected the case of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed the present OA. By the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the present OA following the decision of the Apex Court in LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA v. MRS. ASHA RAMACHANDRA AMBEDKAR.1 Hence, this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the impugned order. 4. The reasons assigned by the respondent-Department in rejecting the case of the petitioners for appointment was that the petitioners have been paid retirement benefits and the 1st petitioner had been granted family pension of Rs.3,000/- per month and 2nd petitioner is major aged 26 years and, therefore, there are no indigent circumstances in the family of the petitioners, which was upheld by the Tribunal by following the decision of the Apex Court stated (1 supra). The Apex Court in Mrs.Asha Ramachandra Ambedkar’s case (1 supra) held that the Courts and Administrative Tribunals have no power to direct the respondents to appoint the persons on compassionate ground, but can only direct consideration of the claim of the applicant for such an appointment. In the instant case, the case of the petitioners has been considered by the respondents on more than one occasion and it was held that there are no indigent circumstances so as give appointment of one of the family member of the petitioners. 5. In the circumstances, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ______________________ B. Seshasayana Reddy, J Dated: 26-11-2008 Nrg. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TPK} 1 JTI 1994 (2) SC 183