YADLA SESHARATNAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THIS writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the retirement of late Y.Ganapathi, Garden Coolie, worked in the 3rd respondent Devasthanam, who is the husband of the 1st petitioner, as premature in view of the clarification issued by the 4th respondent after retirement and consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the 2nd petitioner, who is the son of the deceased Y.Ganapathi in the 3rd respondent Devasthanam on compassionate grounds.

(3.) HOWEVER , as per Article 358 of the A.P.Pension Code, in case of an employee, whose date and month of birth is not known except the year, then the date of birth should be taken as the 1st July of that year. In view of the said Article, the 3rd respondent sent the service register of the employee to the 4th respondent with a request to clarify on the entries of date of birth made in the service register of the employee and intimate the exact date of retirement of the employee. While the matter was pending with the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent superannuated the employee vide his notice dated 29.04.2009 stating that the employee is permitted to retire from service with effect from 30.04.2009 A.N subject to clarification of the 4th respondent - District Audit Officer, State Audit, Kakinada. Accordingly, the employee was retired on 30.04.2009 prematurely before getting clarification from the 4th respondent. Further, even before the clarification was given by the 4th respondent, the employee died on 08.05.2009 due to heart attack. Subsequently, the 4th respondent, vide his letter dated ...04.2009 gave reply to the 3rd respondent and returned the pension proposals of the employee stating that the sanctioning authority may take action based on Article 358 of the A.P.Pension Code.