HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 10991 of 1996 DATED: 18.01.2010 Between: P. Bharati .. Petitioner And 1. The Managing Director, A.P. Foods, Hyderabad 2. The Ex-Officio President, Executive Committee of A.P. Nutrition Council .. Respondents O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that she was initially appointed as Secondary Grade Assistant in Zilla Parishad unit of Nellore District and she sought for deputation to the unit of Medak District. While so, the petitioner’s husband, who is working as Private Secretary to the 1st respondent-Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Foods, filed representation dated 05.07.1989 requesting the Works Manager, Andhra Pradesh Foods to absorb the petitioner’s services into the Andhra Pradesh Foods. However, after a long persuasion, the 1st respondent passed orders dated 08.07.1989 on the representation considering the petitioner’s appointment as Assistant “A” in Andhra Pradesh Foods in the scale of pay of Rs.810-25-1060-30-1420 on compassionate and humanitarian grounds (not in the same scale and pay as was drawn by her in Z.P. High School at Rs.1290/- in the scale of Rs.1010-1080) from the date of her joining report in Andhra Pradesh Foods, Hyderabad. Thus, she joined in the services of the Andhra Pradesh Foods on 31.10.1989 after resigning the post of Secondary Grade Assistant in the Z.P. High School, Sullurpet, Nellore District. Thereafter, she filed a representation dated 28.06.1990 to the 1st respondent seeking her pay protection under the Fundamental Rules and fixation of her pay in the Andhra Pradesh Foods taking into consideration her services rendered in the Zilla Parishad High School, Nellore. The representation was considered by the 1st respondent, vide proceedings dated 5.11.1993, and the matter was referred to the Government for fixation of her pay at higher start of Rs.1300/- quoting the authority under Rule F.R. 22(a)(iii) and F.R. 22(a)(iv). However, the Principal Secretary to Government, Women’s Development & Child Welfare, Secretariat, Hyderabad, in his letter dated 29.09.1994 addressed to the 1st respondent, rejected the case of the petitioner stating that the provisions of Fundamental Rule 22 (a)(iii)(iv) have no application to the case of the petitioner. In view of the rejection of the petitioner’s case against protection of her pay, the 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 08.10.1994 cancelling his earlier order dated 05.11.1993. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal challenging the proceedings dated 08.10.1994 and the Deputy Secretary to Government, vide his proceedings dated 26.08.1995, rejected the appeal. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the proceedings dated 08.10.1994 issued by the 1st respondent and the proceedings dated 26.08.1995 issued by the Deputy Secretary to Government. Heard the learned counsel for the both the parties and perused the material placed on record. It is interesting to note that when the petitioner was in distress condition, and since her husband was working in the Andhra Pradesh Foods, Hyderabad, the representation made by her husband for appointing her as Assistant “A” on compassionate and humanitarian grounds was sympathetically considered, and she left the Government institution and joined another organization that too, agreeing to lesser scale at Rs.810/--25-1060-30-1420. Moreover, the committee of the managers understood the grievance of the petitioner and considered her case on compassionate and humanitarian grounds from the date of her reporting in Andhra Pradesh Foods, Hyderabad latest by 31.10.1989. It is further clear from the letter dated 08.07.1989 that she was appointed as a fresh candidate and her services are terminable at any point of time and governed by Certified Standing Orders for the Workmen of Andhra Pradesh Ready-to-Eat Processed Food Factory. In spite of this, the petitioner made some efforts by filing representation dated 28.06.1990 seeking protection of her pay as was drawn by her as Secondary Grade Assistant in Z.P. High School, Sullurpet, Nellore District. It is unfortunate that such an effort was made by the petitioner and even recommended by the 1st respondent. In fact, the very appointment in Andhra Pradesh Foods was on compassionate grounds and she was not entitled to protection of either her services rendered or salary drawn by her while in service in Z.P. High School, and her appointment is purely temporary, fresh and altogether a different undertaking of the State Government. Therefore, having considered these circumstances, the Government of A.P. has rightly rejected the case of the petitioner, vide proceedings dated 29.09.1994 stating that the pay of the individual may not be possible to regulate in terms of the provisions laid down under Fundamental Rule 22(a)(iii)(iv) as her appointment has not been considered in terms of transfer nor in terms of transfer appointment directly on selection by A.P.P.S.C. to attract the provisions of 22(a)(iii)(iv) of Fundamental Rules, and negatived her request. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the proceedings dated 08.10.1994 issued by the 1st respondent cancelling his earlier recommendation and fixation of the petitioner’s salary and the proceedings dated 26.08.1995 issued by the Deputy Secretary to Government rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner, are justified inasmuch as it is only a speculative litigation that the petitioner first sought for sympathetic appointment on humanitarian grounds and having stepped into the Department where her husband was working as Stenographer, she made a petition seeking protection of her pay under Fundamental Rules, which has absolutely no application to the case of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V. RAMULU, J 18th January, 2010 bcj