IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 8038 of 2006 Between: Shaik Bajid Shariff, s/o late Shaik Abdullah (Ex.Service man) r/o H.No.13-8-44, Ibrahim Street, Morrispeta, Tenali-522 201, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief General Manager, Telecom, A.P.Circle, Hyderabad. 2 The General Manager, Vijayawada Telecom District, Labbipet, Vijayawada, now presently at Chuttigunta, BSNL Bhavan, Eluru Road. 3 Smt.Halima Bee, w/o late Shaik Abdullah, D.No.5-7-215, Besides State Bank of India, Agapura, Hyderabad. .....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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction or order setting-aside the order passed in O.A.No.704/05 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, dt.30-11-2005 confirming the order passed by the 1st respondent in Proc.No.TA/sta/13-028/2005/03, dated 16-3-2005 as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper and in violation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India while directing the respondents 1 & 2 to consider the case of the petitioner by providing a suitable job to the petitioner under compassionate grounds, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SRINIVAS EMANI Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Mr.A.Rajasekhar Reddy (Asst Solicitor General) Counsel for Respondent No.3: Sri C.Yadagiri The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.8038 OF 2006 ORDER :(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus to set aside the order, dated 30.11.2005, passed in O.A.No.704 of 2005 on the file the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for his compassionate appointment. 2. The brief averments, which are necessary for disposal of the writ petition, are as under: - While in service, the father of the petitioner-Shaik Abdullaiah, who was working as Senior Lineman, under the control of the 2nd respondent, died leaving his wife and the petitioner behind him with no means of livelihood either by movable or immovable property. The mother of the petitioner applied for grant of family pension to her and for appointment to her son before the 1st respondent. But, in the meantime, the 1st respondent raised certain objections about the claim made by the 3rd respondent as to her status as the second wife. When there is no response from the respondents-authorities, the mother of the petitioner filed O.A.No.1003 of 2002 seeking direction to the respondents to consider the case of her son for compassionate appointment. The Tribunal by its order dated 20-08-2003, directed the respondents-authorities to consider the case of the petitioner herein by taking into consider the claim made by the 3rd respondent. However, the Assistant General Manager, B.S.N.L., Vijayawada, passed an order dated 16-03-2005 stating that they have decided to scrutinize the candidatures of Smt. Halima Bibi, 2nd wife of the deceased, who is having three unmarried daughters and a minor son, subject to the availability of vacancy for the purpose of making compassionate appointment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed the present O.A.No.704 of 2005. It was the case of the petitioner before the Tribunal that the marriage of the 3rd respondent with his father was illegal and she has no right for seeking appointment to her children. The service rules do not permit to consider the claim of the second wife or her children, for the purpose of compassionate appointment, when the first wife is living. Where as the respondents, in their reply, stated that the mother of the petitioner was divorced and R-3 is the second wife of the father of the applicant. Further, the claims of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent are to be considered in terms of the order dated 20-08- 2003 passed in O.A.No.1003 of 2002. The petitioner was found to be not in indigent condition and therefore, the case of the 3rd respondent was being considered in view of the dependent children. 3. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions passed an order dated 30-11-2005 holding that the issue had already been settled in the litigation filed before the Civil Court as also by the Tribunal earlier. Further, it is an admitted fact that pension has been paid to R-3 as also the mother of the petitioner and that the petitioner himself stated in para-3 of the present O.A. that the name of the 3rd respondent was shown as wife of his father in the declaration of nomination. The Tribunal further held that earlier in O.A.No.1003 of 2002, dated 20-08-2003, it came to the conclusion that the applicant therein, i.e. the mother of the present petitioner, was divorced from the deceased employee as per the records produced in the Tribunal and that the 3rd respondent and her children are also legal heirs of the deceased employee and that the respondent-authorities rightly passed an order dated 16-03-2005 and accordingly directed the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the candidature of the 3rd respondent for compassionate appointment, subject to the availability of vacancy. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the minor daughters of the 3rd respondent being married, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and reiterated the same stand as was taken before the Tribunal. 6. Since, in the declaration form, the name of the 3rd respondent was shown as wife of the deceased and the same was admitted by the petitioner in the pleadings made in para-3 of the present O.A., it is clear that the 3rd respondent is the nominee and is entitled to receive all the benefits of the deceased. The reasons given by the Tribunal are cogent and convincing. We do not see any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that if the 3rd respondent-second wife of the deceased or her children do not come forward for compassionate appointment, the respondent-authorities shall consider the case of the petitioner after issuing notice to R-3. No costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED June 20, 2008 ___________________________ JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU kvr