HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD W.P. No. 7256 of 2010 DATED: 23.06.2011 Between: P.S.A.V. Prasad .. Petitioner And 1. The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh 2. High Court of A.P. 3. The District Judge 4. The Principal Junior Civil Judge .. Respondents O R D E R:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) The petitioner is an unemployed person. He substantively seeks employment on compassionate grounds in the judicial unit of Guntur District. Heard Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Raj Kiran, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The petitioner challenges the condition in Paragraph 15 of G.O.Ms. No.661, General administrative Department, dated 23.10.2008 whereby it is inter alia ordained that the benefit of compassionate appointment on medical grounds shall be confined to cases where the Government servant who retired on medical ground shall have left over service of five years before attaining the age of superannuation irrespective of the age of superannuation prescribed for the posts and services and any particular condition and that the required period of five years of left over service shall be reckoned from the date of issue of orders of retirement on medical invalidation. The factual matrix on which the writ petition is presented may briefly be stated as follows: The petitioner’s father entered service as a Process Server in the judicial unit of Guntur District in 1996 and was due to retire on 30.09.2006 on attaining superannuation. In 1999, his father submitted an application seeking permission to retire from services on medial invalidation and for appointment of the petitioner, his dependent son, on compassionate grounds. The father was directed to appear before the Medical Board and pursuant to the report of the Board, the 3rd respondent-District Judge, Guntur forwarded the proposals to the 2nd respondent recommending for the father’s retirement on medical invalidation and for compassionate appointment of the petitioner, his dependent son. The 2nd respondent, however, returned the proposals directing the 3rd respondent to re-examine the claim of the petitioner afresh and send independent recommendations. Thereupon, the 3rd respondent, on 03.04.2001, addressed the Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Guntur furnishing a list of employees to be re-examined for medical revaluation. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent, on 14.12.2001, rejected the father’s request for retirement on medial invalidation together with the request for compassionate appointment of the petitioner and observed that the father and other applicants may be entitled to retire without the complimentary benefit of compassionate appointment to the respective dependants. By proceedings dated 24.06.2002, the 3rd respondent directed several applicants for retirement on medical invalidation including the petitioner’s father, to produce medical fitness certificates either for rejoining services or for retiring from service without the benefit of compassionate appointment. As the father was not in a position to work, he appears to have submitted an application dated 18.01.2003 seeking retirement simplicitor without the complimentary condition of compassionate appointment for his dependant son, the petitioner. Eventually, by an order dated 18.08.2003, the 3rd respondent acceded to the request of the father for permission to retire from services voluntarily under Rule 37 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and without the benefit of his appointment to his dependant on compassionate grounds. The father was permitted to retire from service with effect from 31.08.2003. All the terminal benefits as entitled to were also directed to be paid and there is no dispute about the receipt of the terminal benefits by the father. The father filed W.P.No. 13769 of 2007 seeking the benefit of compassionate appointment for the petitioner along with other persons seeking compassionate appointment for their dependants. The said writ petition was dismissed. Notwithstanding the admitted dismissal of W.P.No.13769 of 2007, the present writ petition is filed, in substance seeking compassionate appointment, but under the guise of challenging the condition in G.O.Ms. No. 661 dated 23.10.2008 to the extent it is stipulated that five years’ period of left over service of the employee retiring on medical invalidation should be reckoned from the date of issue of orders of retirement on medical invalidation. Clearly the petitioner does not fulfil this eligibility criterion, and therefore does not qualify for compassionate appointment. Be that as it may, the admitted dismissal of W.P. No. 13769 of 2007 filed by the petitioner’s father for the relief of a direction for compassionate appointment of the petitioner would bind the petitioner as well on application of the principles of res judicata and the relief sought herein would be barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. For the aforesaid reasons, there are no merits in the writ petition, which is accordingly, dismissed. But, in the circumstances, without costs. __________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 23.06.2011 ___________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J bcj