IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26615 of 2008 Between: Valluri Venkatesh, S/o. Late V. Kondaiah, R/o. 11-78, Kasai Street, Oldpet, Chandragiri, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Rep by its Executive Officer, Tirupathi. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.GOVIND REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: --- The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondent in appointing the petitioner, on par with 107 persons, who were appointed by the respondent by its proceedings dated 10.01.2008, as illegal and arbitrary. This case reflects the trauma of the petitioner, who is driven to this Court time and again. Despite passing of orders by this Court on earlier occasions, his efforts did not bear fruit. The petitioner’s father took voluntary retirement, on the ground of medical invalidation, in the year 1999. As per the scheme prevailing then, one of the dependents of the retired employee was entitled to be given compassionate appointment, provided the employee was retired on the ground of medical invalidation with a minimum leftover service of five years. When the petitioner’s case was not considered on the ground that by the time of acceptance of his father’s request for retirement, the latter did not have the five years’ service, the petitioner’s father, therefore, filed W.P.No.25195 of 2000, which was disposed of by this Court on 17.07.2001. This Court gave a positive finding that 10.06.1999 should be taken as the date on which the petitioner’s father was medically incapacitated and that the petitioner’s case shall be considered by giving the benefit of compassionate appointment by treating his father as having the leftover service of five years prior to his schedule date of superannuation. The respondent, by proceedings dated 14.05.2002, rejected the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that a Full Bench of this Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. D. Gopaiah[1], declared the relevant G.O providing for compassionate appointment to the children of the employees, who retire on medical invalidation grounds, as unconstitutional. The petitioner’s father, aggrieved thereby, filed W.P.No.10224 of 2002, which was allowed by a learned Single Judge and a direction was given to appoint the petitioner on the ground that despite the Full Bench judgment of this Court in D.Gopaiah (1 supra), the respondent had regularized the services of 36 persons. The said order was, however, reversed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 886 of 2003, in view of the Full Bench judgment holding that the scheme of compassionate appointment is contrary to Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. However, later the petitioner filed W.P.No. 3138 of 2005 seeking a direction to the respondent to appoint him in any suitable post on contract basis. In WPMP No. 4253 of 2005 in the said writ petition, this Court granted the following interim direction, by order dated 07.06.2005. “Pending further orders the petitioner is directed to make an application to the respondent seeking the relief in terms of the proceedings dated 12.02.2004. If such an application is made, the respondent is directed to pass an order considering the claim of the petitioner to be forwarded to the association for being sponsored on contract basis under the category of the dependents of medically invalidated employees within a period of two weeks from the date of presentation of the application by the petitioner” Purporting to consider the petitioner’s case, consequent on the said order passed by this Court, the respondent issued order dated 14-07-2005. At page 3 of the said order, it is mentioned as under: “In pursuance to the directions of the Hon’ble High Court to consider the case with reference to the date of issue of medical invalidation certificate, the case is considered and treated as if he has retired within 5 years”. At page 4 of the order, the petitioner’s case was rejected only on the ground that his father did not have leftover service of five years before his schedule date of retirement. The petitioner filed an application for amendment of the prayer in W.P.No.3138 of 2005 in order to question this order and the said amendment has been allowed. The said writ petition is pending. Consequent on another judgment of the Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India vs. Ram Kesh Yadav[2], 107 persons, who were dependents of the persons and allowed to retire on the ground of medical invalidation, and were appointed on contract basis, filed W.P.No.11584 of 2006 seeking regularization of their services. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 27.12.2007, with the following directions: “In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to consider the cases of petitioners for regularization of their services in TTD Board according to their qualifications and eligibility in the light of the judgment rendered by the apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3451 of 2006 dated 27.02.2007 and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner.” Consequent on the said order, the respondent issued proceedings dated 10.01.2008, regularizing the services of all those 107 persons. The petitioner filed the present writ petition alleging discrimination. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, he reiterated the only ground on which the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment was not considered, namely; his father did not have leftover service of five years. In my considered view, this ground does not have legs to stand. As noted earlier in W.P.No.25195 of 2000, this Court, after giving a categorical finding, gave directions to the respondent to consider the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment by treating that his father had retired with leftover service of five years. Even in the order passed on 14.07.2005, the respondent at one place clearly mentioned that in pursuance of directions of this Court, the petitioner’s case was considered and treated as if his father had retired five years prior to the schedule date of retirement. But very surprisingly, in the penultimate para of the said order, the petitioner’s case for appointment was rejected on the ground that his father did not have five years’ service. In my considered view, the respondent did not properly apply its mind in rejecting the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. The respondent is bound by the direction given by this Court in W.P. No.25195 of 2000, which has become final. Further, I see no justification in denyin`g the petitioner appointment, while 107 persons, who were also dependents of the persons, who were retired on the ground of medical invalidation, were not only engaged on daily wage basis earlier but also their services were regularized. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The respondent is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner by treating that his father had retired with the leftover qualifying service of five years and pass appropriate order for appointing the petitioner under the scheme of compassionate appointment, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 31st March, 2009 vrn [1] 2001 (6) ALD 759 (FB) [2] 2007 (4) Scale 24