IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6546 of 2009 Between: K.V.S. Naga Raju S/o. Late K. Ramulu R/o. 36-94-101, Bapuji Nagar, Kanchara Palem, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Visakhapatnam Port Trust, rep. by its Chairman, Port Area, Visakhapatnam. 2 Cargo Handling Division, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, rep. by its Traffic Manager, Port Area, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: MR.P.SRI RAGHU RAM The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment consequent upon retirement of his father on medical invalidation, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents to appoint him as a Mazdoor on compassionate ground. The petitioner’s father retired on the ground of medical invalidation from respondent No.1-company in the year 1999. Immediately thereafter, he requested the respondents to appoint his son i.e., the petitioner on compassionate ground. As the petitioner was minor at that time, the respondents have not included him in the list of the selected candidates. However, the selection list was not proceeded with further in view of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court i n GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, GENERAL ADMN., DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD v. D.GOPAIAH[1]. Subsequently, the petitioner attained majority in the year 2000. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the respondents have revived the scheme of compassionate appointment following the judgment of the Supreme Court in V.SIVAMURTHY v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH[2], his case is not considered. A counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents. Sri P.Sri Raghuram, learned Standing Counsel of respondent No.1 submitted that the petitioner did not figure in the selection list prepared in the year 1999-2000 in view of the fact that he did not attain majority at that time and that following the Full Bench Judgment the said selection list was not given effect to. He further submitted that the scheme was revived following the judgment of the Supreme Court and as the petitioner did not figure in the selection list his case is not considered. I am of the considered view that when the scheme of compassionate appointment has got revived by the respondents, it is incumbent upon them to consider the case of the petitioner, if he is otherwise eligible in accordance with the scheme. According to the terms of the scheme, which existed in the respondents’ organization, in case children were minors at the time of death/medical invalidation of the employee, the application received after attaining majority shall be considered. As the petitioner was admittedly minor when his father has taken voluntary retirement on medical grounds and the scheme was kept under suspended animation, immediately after the petitioner attained majority in the year 2000, it is but fair for the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case afresh after the revival of the scheme of compassionate appointment in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the year 2007. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh application for compassionate appointment in accordance with the scheme of the respondents, within a period of two weeks from today, and on receipt of the same, respondent No.1 shall consider and dispose of the same within a period of eight weeks thereafter. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.8556 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 20.04.2009 va [1] 2001(6) ALT 553 (F.B) [2] (2008) 13 SCC 730