ANIL R. DAVE, CJ :- Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.01.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.24641 of 2006, the appellants have filed this appeal. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellants - original respondents to appoint the respondents – original petitioners as Conductors Grade-II, in pursuance of the proceedings dated

10.05.2002.

2. The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nutshell, are as under:

The present respondents are the dependants of the deceased employees of the appellant Corporation, who had died in harness. As per the Scheme known as "Bread Winner Scheme", which was in force in the past, the respondents were eligible to be appointed as Conductors by the appellant employer. Before the respondents could be appointed as Conductors under the aforestated Scheme, the

Government of Andhra Pradesh, which has administrative control over the appellant employer, had dispensed with/modified the Scheme because of certain changed circumstances and by virtue of the new Scheme, no dependant of a deceased employee is entitled to get any appointment in service on compassionate ground. By virtue of the new Scheme, the dependants of an employee, who dies in harness, are entitled to a lump sum amount referred to in G.O.Ms.No.36, dated 05.09.2001, which was applied to all State Level Public Enterprises, including the appellants.

3. As the respondents - original petitioners were not given appointment as Conductors, they had filed the aforestated writ petition, which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge has directed the appellants to appoint the respondents as Conductors.

4. The learned Single Judge passed the impugned order by holding that the order dated 16.12.2005 passed by another learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.26572 of 2005, which was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.320 of 2006 on 17.04.2006, is squarely applicable to the facts of the case.

5. We have heard learned advocate Sri C. Prakash Reddy appearing for the appellant Corporation and learned advocate Sri P. Prabhakara Rao appearing for the respondents.

6. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the learned Single Judge has not considered the fact that there is no policy with regard to giving compassionate appointment. Our attention has been drawn to the contents of the affidavit in reply, which had been filed in the writ petition. It has been specifically stated in the reply that with effect from 05.09.2001, in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.36 and more particularly from 30.07.2005, the policy with regard to giving compassionate appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased employee, who died in harness, had been abolished. Looking to the financial condition of the appellant Corporation, it was decided not to recruit any person by giving compassionate appointment and, instead of providing employment to the dependant of the deceased employee, it was decided to make ex-gratia payment to the dependants of the deceased employee. Our attention has been drawn to the said letter dated 30.07.2005, which was annexed to the affidavit in reply filed by the appellants before the learned Single Judge.

7. It has been submitted that as per the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994, each appointment to be made by the appellant Corporation is subject to prior approval of the State of Andhra Pradesh. As stated hereinabove, because of weak financial condition of the appellant Corporation, it was decided to abandon the policy with regard to compassionate appointment in pursuance of the instructions received from the Government of Andhra Pradesh under G.O.Ms.No.36, dated 05.09.2001. A copy of the said letter has also been annexed to the affidavit in reply, which was filed by the appella

Click Here to Read the rest of this document