THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION N. 15437 of 2000 Between: M.A.Samad …Petitioner And The Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Secretary Education (PS.I) Department, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents. Oral order: Sri A. Radha Krishna, learned counsel representing the petitioner has been heard, as is the learned Government Pleader for School Education. No counter-affidavit has been filed in this writ petition instituted on 18-8-2000, a reflection of the callousness of the respondents. The writ petition is filed challenging the communication dated 26- 5-1999 of the 2nd respondent, the Director of School Education again rejecting the petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment on the ground that the Government in an earlier Memo had already rejected the petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment and that the scheme of compassionate appointment on medical grounds has not been extended to Teachers working in the aided schools and therefore, the petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment is not feasible. The petitioner’s father Sri Mohd. Munawar Ali was a Teacher working in the 4th respondent aided school in an aided post. He retired voluntarily on 1-12-1986 after suffering a Paralytic stroke on the ground of medical invalidation. He would have continued in service till the normal age of superannuation up to 17-7-1993. On the retirement of his father from the post of an Assistant Teacher in the 4th respondent’s school, the petitioner’s father submitted an application dated 25-9-1987 to the 3rd respondent requesting the petitioner’s appointment on compassionate basis in a suitable post. There was no response thereto. In the representation dated 25-9-1987 certain Government orders in G.O.Ms.No.504, GAD, dated 30-7-1980, GOMs.No.236, PR Department, dated 2-4-1983, GOMs.No.282, Education Department dated 9-3-1981, GOMs.No.508, GAD dated 20-10-1982 and GOMs.No.457, GAD dated 19-9-1983 were quoted without any reference, why these Government orders are quoted. Be that as it may. It is pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the 2nd respondent on 10-2-1995 addressed the 1st respondent stating that the petitioner satisfied the criteria envisaged in GOMs.No. 504 and that his family is in distress with his father receiving a monthly pension of only Rs.482/- which hardly met his medical expenses. The 2nd respondent is stated to have recommended to the 1st respondent to permit the 3rd respondent to appoint the petitioner in any suitable post within his jurisdiction. The 2nd respondent in his letter to the 1st respondent also stated that since the post of an Attender is not in the staffing pattern of the Aided Private Elementary Schools, the petitioner may be appointed within the jurisdiction of the 3rd respondent. The 1st respondent sought clarification from the 2nd respondent, why proposals were not submitted to the Government before the retirement of the petitioner’s father i.e., 1-12-1986; whether his father was retired voluntarily with five years left for superannuation and the reason for submitting the proposal after a lapse of eight years. The 2nd respondent in his reply dated 17-5-1995 addressed to the 1st respondent clarified that the petitioner’s father had voluntarily retired with six years and odd left for normal superannuation and that the delay occurred because the application was made for the first time on 25-9-1987 on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner continued making representations and eventually the 2nd respondent by the communication dated 25-9-1987 reiterated on earlier rejection of the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment. Neither in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition nor in the oral arguments at the hearing of the case is any attempt made to establish any scheme of compassionate appointment which entitles the petitioner to seek appointment on compassionate basis on the ground of his father having retired on medical invalidation as a Teacher in an aided school. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the order of the State Government in G.O.Ms.No. 612, GAD dated 30-10-1991, which is an order relating to a scheme of compassionate appointment to the dependents (son/daughter/spouse) of Government employees who died in the harness. In para 4 of this order, the Government directed that the existing scheme of compassionate appointment of spouse/son/daughter of a Government servant who retire on medical invalidation would also continue. The petitioner’s father was not a Government servant. He was a Teacher in an Aided School which is distinct from the status of a Government servant. Reliance is also placed on an order in G.O.Ms.No. 30, Education Department, dated 1-2-1994 wherein the Government extended the scheme of compassionate appointment spelt out in G.O.Ms.No. 612, GAD dated 30-10-1991, mutatis mutandis to the employees working in Aided/Zilla Praja Parishad/Municipal Schools. This is also an order issued in exercise of the executive power of the State under Article 162 of the Constitution. It is also not retrospective (as already noticed it is dated 1-2-1994). It would not therefore entitle the petitioner to claim compassionate appointment on the medical invalidation of his father who retired on medical invalidation with effect from 1-12-1986. No other Government order which spells out a scheme of compassionate appointment operational on the date of medical invalidation of the petitioner’s father is placed for the consideration of this Court. It also requires to be noticed that the writ petition is filed in August, 2000 nearly 14 years after the retirement on medical invalidation of the petitioner’s father and therefore, the writ petition is barred by laches and delay, particularly in view of the fact that the compassionate appointment schemes are intended to alleviate distress caused to dependents of Government servants and others in public employment on account of the sudden unemployment occasioned by the medical invalidation of the family provider in public service. No such distress is discernable as the family has been able to sustain itself for a period of nearly one and half decades in this case. This is not to say that the petitioner is not in economic distress, but the distress is not of such compelling nature as would fall within the extant scheme of compassionate appointment. All schemes envisage consideration for compassionate appointment to be within a specified time, usually of one year from the date of medical invalidation of the public servant so as to provide succor to a dependent to relieve the family of a public servant from the distress. On the analysis above, no case is made out for interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 25th November, 2010. GRR