AR. LAKSHMANAN, C. J.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri A. K. Jayaprakash Rao, the learned Counsel for the appellant and sri P. Nageswara Sree, the learned Counsel for the respondent. The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant in this appeal. The writ petition was filed for a mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in proceedings dated 20-11-2001 refusing to consider the case of the appellant for appointment on compassionate ground, as illegal, unjust and contrary to law and to grant all consequential benefits.

( 2 ) THE case of the appellant is that her late husband joined the services of the respondent-Bank as watchman/attendar and had put in 17 years of service and that he was illegally dismissed from service by order dated 17-2-1994. Aggrieved by the said order of removal her husband filed an appeal before the appellate authority under section 48 of the A. P. Shops and establishments Act, 1988 (for short the Act ) which was numbered as S. E. 29 of 1994. During the pendency of the said appeal her husband died on 15-12-1995 and that the appellate authority allowed the appeal directing the respondent therein to provide suitable employment to the appellant and also directed payment of 50% of the back wages. However, the 2nd appellate authority in the appeal filed by the respondent (S. A. No. 4 of 1999) modified the order of the 1st appellate authority by judgment dated 31-12-1999 to the extent of directing employment to the appellant but confirmed the order for payment of wages from 21-4-1994 to 9-3-1999.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the appellant, since the order of removal was set aside and her husband was deemed to be in service and thereafter died in harness her case may be considered for compassionate appointment as per the service regulations of the respondent-Bank. Elaborating the said submission the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that while the appellant s husband was working in nellore branch, charge-sheet was issued alleging that he had wilfully disobeyed the lawful orders issued by the Regional manager on 20-4-1990 and that he was found under the influence of alcohol while on duty and that on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer the punishment of deferment of one annual increment without cumulative effect for a period of six months was inflicted by an order dated 31-12-1991. However, the respondent therein suo mottt passed the order dated 17-2-1994 after lapse of more than two years modifying the order dated 31-12-1991 and awarding capital punishment of dismissal from service.

( 4 ) WHEN the appellant filed writ petition No. 5526 of 2000 before this Court seeking consideration of her case for appointment on compassionate ground this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent to consider her case. In pursuance of the said direction given by this court the respondent now passed orders erroneously denying the appellant compassionate appointment on the ground that her husband was not in service at the time of his death. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the order of dismissal passed against the husband of the appellant was set aside and therefore he was deemed to be in service; therefore the reason assigned by the respondent that the appellant s husband was not in service and therefore the appellant is not entitled for consideration of her case for appointment on compassionate ground, is untenable and unsustainable in law. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied on the judgment reported in eluri Marthamma v. Divisional Railways manager, B. C. Railway by which a Division bench of this Court held that the deceased employee in that case who was a casual labourer worked uninterruptedly for 15 years in Railways and had thereby acquired the status of temporary worker and therefore his widow is entitled to family pension. Considering the case of the claim for compassionate appointment the Bench held that the petitioner therein who is the widow of the dece

Click Here to Read the rest of this document