Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed by the Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority, aggrieved by the order passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.3167 of 2012 dated 28.05.2012 (“Tribunal” for short). The 1st respondent herein invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to declare the action of the petitioners herein, in not considering her case for appointment as an NMR (Last Grade Service employee) on compassionate grounds in the place of her husband who died while working as NMR (Last Grade Service employee) in the office of the 1st petitioner, as arbitrary and illegal. The reason why the 1st respondent was denied such a benefit was that the scheme of compassionate appointment was not available to persons who died in harness while working as an NMR.

By the order under challenge in this Writ Petition, the Tribunal observed that, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Director of Education v. S. Pushpender Kumar (AIR 1998 SC 2230), a Division bench of the High Court, in W.A. No.1119 of 2010 dated 07.12.2011, had confirmed the order of the single judge; and, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Pushpender Kumar (supra), the 1st respondent was entitled to be appointed as NMR (LGS) on compassionate grounds. The O.A. was disposed of directing the petitioners herein to consider the case of the 1st respondent for appointment as NMR (LGS employee) on compassionate grounds taking into consideration the judgment in W.A. No.1119 of 2010 dated 07.12.2011.

Mrs. K. Mani Deepika, Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, would submit that the 1st respondent has already been provided employment on a petty contract basis; she was not eligible for being extended the benefit of time scale of pay; her husband was not a regular employee, and was only extended the benefit of time scale of pay; he was engaged as NMR on 01.02.1990; he did not complete the required five years of service, for regularisation in terms of G.O.Ms. No.212 dated 22.04.1994, by the cut off date of 25.11.1993; he was, therefore, not entitled for regularisation; the scheme of compassionate appointment is applicable only to regular employees, and not to NMR employees; merely because time scale of pay was granted, did not make an NMR employee a regular employee; his dependents are not entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds; and the Tribunal had erred in directing that the case of the 1st respondent be considered for compassionate appointment.

On the other hand Sri S. Satyanarayana Rao, Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, would submit that the 1st respondent is the sole breadwinner of her family; she had submitted a representation on 24.11.2009 to the 1st petitioner requesting that she be provided a job on compassionate grounds; the 1st petitioner, by proceedings dated 09.12.2009, had sought permission of the Government to appoint her as an LGS employee on compassionate grounds; the Government had, vide letter dated 23.02.2010, rejected her request on the ground that her husband had not completed five years of service as on 25.11.1993 which is the minimum period stipulated for regularisation of service in terms of G.O.Ms. No.212; the Tribunal had merely directed that her case be considered for compassionate appointment as an NMR employee, and not as a regular employee; even though her husband worked as an NMR employee, he was extended the benefit of time scale of pay including increments; similarly situated persons, who were also appointed on NMR basis along with her husband, were also extended the benefit of time scale of pay in the last grade service with effect from 12.06.2003; and she was, therefore, entitled to be appointed as an NMR employee in the place of her husband.

Before examining the rival contentions, urged by Learned Counsel on either side, it is useful to briefly refer to the principles governing compassionate appointment. Recruitment of