VRS, J.

The claim of the petitioners for the appointment of the second petitioner on compassionate grounds, having been rejected by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, they have come up with the above writ petition.

2. Heard Mr. P.V. Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services A.P.

3. The 1st petitioner was appointed as a Tailor in the Government General Hospital on 25.05.1984. He was due to retire on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.05.2014.

4. Five years before he was due to retire on superannuation, the 1st petitioner made a representation on 25.05.2009, seeking retirement on medical grounds and seeking appointment for his son, the 2nd petitioner herein, on compassionate grounds.

5. In response to the said representation, the 1st petitioner was called upon to appear before the Regional Medical Board, Guntur. He appeared before the Regional Medical Board on 27.05.2009 and on 30.05.2009.

6. By a certificate issued on 30.05.2009 by the Regional Medical Board, the 1st petitioner was declared medically invalid. Therefore, the 1st petitioner stopped attending duties from 30.05.2009 and made a representation dated 07.11.2009 seeking appointment for the 2nd petitioner on compassionate grounds.

7. The District Collector addressed a communication to the Government on 10.11.2009 quoting G.O.Ms.No.661, GAD dated 23.10.2008. The Government by a letter dated 26.04.2010 sought a detailed report. The Director of Medical Education sent a detailed report on 20.09.2010.

8. Since nothing happened, the petitioner made a representation on 04.11.2013 indicating that even his pension was not finalized. Therefore, the Superintendent of the Government General Hospital again sent a letter to the Director of Medical Education on 29.11.2013. But there was no response.

9. Therefore, the father-son duo filed an application in O.A.No.7105 of 2015 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, seeking a declaration that the 1st petitioner retired on medical invalidation with effect from 30.05.2009 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to provide employment to the 2nd petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.182, GAD dated 22.05.2014.

10. The said application was dismissed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal on two grounds, viz., (a) that the 1st petitioner was not issued with any order retiring him on medical invalidation; and (b) that G.O.Ms.No.182 would have prospective and not retrospective application. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their original application, the petitioners are before us.

11. It is true that under G.O.Ms.No.504, GAD dated 30.07.1980, the Government introduced a scheme for compassionate appointment of the dependents of Government servants, who retired on medical invalidation. This benefit was confined under G.O.Ms.No.309, dated 04.07.1985 to cases where Government servants retired on medical grounds five years before attaining the age of superannuation.

12. The scheme itself was set at naught by a Full Bench of this Court. But the said decision was reversed by the Supreme Court in V. Sivamurthy v. State of A.P. (2008) 13 SCC 730.

13. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.661, GAD dated 23.10.2008. Under this Government Order, a detailed procedure was prescribed for allowing persons to retire on medical invalidation and granting appointment on compassionate grounds to one of their wards.

14. In paragraph-16 (i) (d) of the said Government Order, it is prescribed that as and when a Government employee applies for retirement on medical grounds, the appointing authority should refer the case to a team of Doctors (Medical Board).

15. After the Medical Board gives its report, the appointing authority should refer the matter to a District Level Committee of officers for scrutiny. This prescription is found in paragraph-16 (ii) of G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23.10.2008. It reads as follow