THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.847 OF 2001 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the 2nd respondent – The District Collector/Chairman, Cuddapah District Scheduled Caste Service Co- operative Society Ltd., Cuddapah in Rc.No.140/2000/D1 dated 20.7.2000 in rejecting the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, the present writ petition is filed. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is stated that the mother of the petitioner by name C.Santhoshamma was appointed as a contingent employee as Composer by the proceedings of the District Collector in R.C.No.4259/81-A dated 30.11.1981 in Udaya Printing Press, which is under the control of the District Scheduled Caste Services Co- operative Society Ltd., Cuddapah (for short ‘the Society’). Subsequently, she was appointed as temporary employee by the proceedings of the 2nd respondent – District collector in Rc.No.1646/81 dated 1.8.1985. In the year 1997, when the Udaya Printing Press was closed, the mother of the petitioner was taken into the office of the Executive Director of the Society and the minimum time scale was fixed. The mother of the petitioner died on 23.2.2000 and she has served for about 18 years, 2 months and 23 days and the case of the petitioner is that she falls within the definition of ‘employee’ under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act and as he is the legal heir, is entitled for the gratuity amount. As the mother of the petitioner died in service, he made a representation on 23.7.2000 to the 2nd respondent to consider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds as Junior Assistant as he studied intermediate and by the impugned proceedings dated 20.7.2000 the same was rejected. The further case of the petitioner is that as per G.O.Ms.No.118 dated 18.8.1999, the dependants of daily wage employees or NMRs are entitled to the appointed on compassionate grounds. The further case of the petitioner is that one M.Nageswara Rao who was working as typist in the office of the said society died while in service and his wife Smt. M.Vijaya Lakshmi Devi was given appointment as Steno-Typist on compassionate grounds, but the similar treatment was denied to the petitioner. With these averments, the petitioner sought to set aside the impugned order dated 20.7.2000 and direct the respondents to provide appointment to him on compassionate grounds. 4. The 2nd respondent – Executive Director of the Society filed counter and not disputing the service particulars of the mother of the petitioner, stated inter alia that the petitioner was paid the gratuity amount and the mother of the petitioner was appointed in Udaya Printing Press Cuddapah on temporary basis and when the said press was closed, she was allowed to work in the society on humanitarian grounds and her pay was fixed as per the interim orders of this court in WPMP.No.25570/1995 in WP.No.20659/1995 and that will not confer any right and the G.Os. referred to by the petitioner are not applicable to his case as his mother was a contingent employee. With these averments and supporting the impugned order, sought to dismiss the writ petition. 5. From the above, the facts which are not in dispute are that the mother of the petitioner was appointed as Composer in the year 1981 in the Udya Printing Press, Cuddapah and the said press was under the control of the Society and subsequently owing to the closure of the press, the mother of the petitioner was allowed to work in the society and after serving for a period of about 18 years, she died while in service. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was paid the gratuity amount. Further, as per G.O.Ms.No.118, even the dependants of the NMRs are entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds in the organizations like the present society in question. The other fact which is not disputed is that when one of the employees Nageswara Rao who was working as Typist died while in service, the society provided employment to his wife on compassionate grounds. In the impugned order, there is no reference of these facts and the G.Os. 6. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 20.7.2000 is set aside and the 2nd respondent shall reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. AVS -------------------------------- 24—10—2008