IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4841 of 2009 Between: K.Hari Krishna, S/o. K.Appalanayudu, R/o. 50-65-23, Kanakammavari Veedhi, Seethammapeta, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Rep by its Chairman, Port Arear, Visakhapatnam. 2 Cargo Handlings Division, Visakhapantam Port Trust, Rep by its Traffic Manager, Port Area, Visakhapatnam. .....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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Orders, Direction or Directions declaring the action of the Respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment consequent upon the retirement of his father on Medical Invalidation on the ground that his brother is employed in Cargo handling Workers Pool as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and to issue a consequential direction to the Respondents to appoint the petitioner as a Mazdoor on compassionate grounds consequent upon the retirement of his father on Medical Invalidatio. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.SRI RAGHU RAM The Court made the following : ORDER The petitioner claims employment in the Visakhapatnam Post Trust on compassionate grounds. One K.Appalanayudu is the father of the petitioner. He retired from service on medical grounds. The petitioner submitted an application to the respondents for appointment on compassionate grounds because of the retirement of his father on medical grounds. His application came to be rejected on the ground that his brother is gainfully employed and therefore, his case cannot be considered for compassionate appointment. The said proceeding whereunder his claim for compassionate appointment came to be rejected is under challenge in this writ petition. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri P.Raghu Ram, learned Standing Counsel of Visakhapatnam Post Trust received notice on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court dated 20.11.2008 passed in WP No.25445 of 2008 (G. Prasad v., Visakhapatnam Port Trust & another). This factual aspect has not been contradicted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for employment on compassionate grounds without reference to employment of his brother and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law expeditiously, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. __________ 12-03-2009 rkk