IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 22450 of 2008 Between: The District Collector (S.W), Vizianagaram District, Vizianagaram. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 P.Chinna, Kamati, Govt.Social Welfare Hostel, Chintada, Vizianagaram. 2 M.Sailaja, C/o.Chinna, Kamati, Govt.Social Welfare Hostel, Chintada, Vizianagaram. .....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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" calling for the records relating to the orders of the Hon'ble A.P.Admn. Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in O.A.No.702/2005 dated 10-04-2007 as being erroneous, illegal and unreasonable and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondents: none appeared. The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per GM, J) Assailing the order, dated 10.04.2007 passed in O.A.No.702 of 2005 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, this writ petition is filed. The petitioner herein is the respondent and the respondents herein are the applicants in O.A.No.702 of 2005. The brief facts are that the first applicant’s husband, while working as Hostel Warden, died in harness on 02.08.2001. Pursuant to his death, on an application being filed by the first applicant, the petitioner-District Collector, has considered the same and appointed her as ‘Kamati’ in Government S.W. Boys Hostel, Chintada vide proceedings, dated 31.05.2003, subject to relaxation of age and educational qualifications, as per G.O.Ms.No.349, dated 12.06.1986 and is working in the said post. While so, the petitioner has issued proceedings, dated 14.02.2005, cancelling the appointment of the first applicant, on the ground that she crossed 45 years as on the date of her appointment and exgratia amount shall be paid to her as per the rules. Aggrieved by the same, she filed O.A.No.702 of 2005 and the same was allowed setting aside the order dated 14.02.2005 and directing the petitioner to reinstate the first applicant into service by regularizing the period from the date of relief to the date of reinstatement into service, pursuant to the interim direction given by the Tribunal, as on duty. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have seen that the first applicant was appointed on compassionate grounds subject to relaxation of age and educational qualification, on the ground that the Government has issued instructions as per the Circular Memo, dated 11.12.2003, to revoke the appointment order of the first applicant and to pay ex-gratia as per rules, since her age is above 45 years on the date on which she made application. Thus, he prays to allow the writ petition. As per the Circular Memo, dated 11.12.2003, the Government has directed that the upper age limit of 45 years as on first July of the year, in which the application is made, provided the application for compassionate appointment is made within one year after the death of the employee, shall be followed for the compassionate appointment to the spouse of the deceased government employee. In case if the spouse of the deceased government employee is above 45 years of age, exgratia amount shall be paid to the individual as per orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.59, dated 05.02.1993. According to the petitioner, as the first applicant was aged 49 years as on 30.09.2002, on which date she made the application for compassionate appointment, her appointment has to be cancelled. The Tribunal has observed that since the Circular Memo, dated 11.12.2003, was issued after the date of appointment of the first applicant, it cannot be given retrospective effect, and accordingly, set aside the order, dated 14.02.2005, through which the appointment of the first applicant was cancelled, and directed the petitioner to reinstate the first applicant into service by regularizing the period from the date of relief to the date of reinstatement into service, pursuant to the interim directions issued by the Tribunal, as on duty. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the material on record, as the Circular Memo was issued on 11.12.2003, it cannot be given effect to the first applicant, as she was appointed on 31.05.2003, as rightly observed by the Tribunal. Therefore, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the well-reasoned order of the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. The Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:16.10.2008 sj ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}