DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, C. J.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri O. Manohar Reddy for the petitioner and Smt. Bhaskara Lakshmi, standing Counsel for the High Court, for respondents.

( 2 ) THE first petitioner is the wife and the second petitioner is the son of one Y. Abdul sattar, who was working in the Judicial department. He died on 16-6-1998 in harness. After his demise, the first petitioner made an application to the District Judge, anantapur, requesting him to appoint the second petitioner on compassionate grounds as there are no earning members in the family and that he has passed SSC examination. At that time, the second petitioner was a minor. The then District judge issued proceedings dated 12-8-1998 to renew the application after the second petitioner becomes major. After the second petitioner attained majority, he submitted an application to the 2nd respondent herein requesting him to consider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. The second respondent sought for clarification from the first respondent as to. whether the second petitioner could be appointed in the vacancies on compassionate grounds after relaxation of the Rules. The first respondent rejected the application for appointment on compassionate grounds and directed the second respondent to pay ex gratia of rs. 20,000/ -. In pursuance of the order issued by the first respondent, the second respondent issued proceedings in Dis. No. 250, dated 11-1-2002 sanctioning an amount of Rs. 20,000. 00 as ex gratia to the family members of the deceased who died in harness. According to the writ petitioner, the action of the first respondent and the consequential action of the second respondent in rejecting the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds is not legal and is arbitrary.

( 3 ) AT the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the second respondent having directed the first petitioner to make application after the second petitioner attained majority, he is estopped, by conduct, in denying the appointment on compassionate grounds on the ground that the application has been made after the period of two years. Therefore, again, it is submitted that the action of the respondents is not legal and is arbitrary.

( 4 ) THE writ petition was filed with the following prayer:". . . . . . . . . . . . . it is prayed that this honourable Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the order of the 1st respondent passed in Roc. No. 2375/2001 - Cl. (6) dated 21-12-2001 referred to in the order of the 2nd respondent in D. Dis No. 250, dated 11-1-2002 and the consequential order of the 2nd respondent passed in dis. No. 250 dated 11-1-2002 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to consider the claim of the 2nd petitioner for compassionate appointment and pass such other or further orders as the Honourable Court feels fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. "a counter-affidavit was filed by the respondents herein. We have perused the counter-affidavit and heard Smt. Bhaskara lakshmi.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the High court submitted that the Government in g. O. Ms. No. 612, General Administration (Ser. A) Department, dated: 30-10-1991 ordered that a minor who does not attain majority within two years as specified in the government Memo No. 618, Ser. A/78-11, general Administration Department, dt. 17-12-1979 after the demise of the deceased Government employee shall not be considered for appointment and in such cases, it is decided to grant ex gratia to the widow/dependent of the deceased employee as per the orders to be issued separately. Accordingly, in G. O. Ms. No. 59, General Administration (Ser. A) department, dt. 5-2-1993, orders were issued directing the concerned appointing authority to grant ex gratia to the widow/ dependent of the deceased employee in such cases. Our attention was also drawn to the memo No. 618/ser. A/78-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document