SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER Vs. B SUDHAKAR RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14. 10. 2008 passed by the andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, hyderabad in O. A. No. 65 of 2004, wherein the Tribunal allowed the O. A by setting aside the proceedings dated 2. 1. 2004.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent-applicant approached the tribunal under Section 19 of the administrative Tribunals Act, challenging the order dated 15. 12. 2003 issued by the second respondent and its consequential proceedings dated 2. 1. 2004 issued by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal.

(3.) THE father of the applicant, while he was working as Work Inspector Grade ii in A. M. R. P. Division No. 1, Gurrampadu was permitted to retire from service on medical invalidation with effect from 13. 10. 2000 as per proceedings dated 8. 1. 2002 of the District Collector, Nalgonda. Thereupon, the applicant was appointed as junior Assistant on compassionate grounds in view of the medical invalidation of his father as per proceedings dated 4. 5. 2002 issued by the 1st respondent-Superintending engineer, AMRP Circle No. 1, G. V. Gudem, nalgonda and the applicant joined duty on 4. 5. 2002. It is stated, subsequently a Full bench of this Court held that the scheme of compassionate appointment on medical invalidation is unconstitutional. Thereupon, the Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 202, general Administration Department dated 27. 4. 2002, dispensing with the scheme of compassionate appointment on medical invalidation. The Government also issued g. O. Ms. No. 203 dated 27. 4. 2002 directing that the appointments so far not made shall be stopped. Later, the Government issued g. O. Ms. No. 305 dated 17. 7. 2002 stating that no compassionate appointment could be given even in the pending cases also. Then the Engineer-in-Chief (Admn. Wing) I and CAD Department, Hyderabad addressed a letter dated 15. 12. 2003 to the Secretary to Government, Irrigation and CAD department, stating that the Superintending engineer issued termination orders of the applicant in accordance with the advise of the Learned Government Pleader and the superintending Engineer, AMRP Circle issued order dated 2. 1. 2004 terminating the services of the applicant in view of withdrawing the scheme of compassionate appointment. Assailing the same, the applicant filed O. A. contending that the applicant's father was permitted to retire long prior to the decision of the hon'ble High Court and withdrawing the compassionate appointment scheme and the delay is on the part of the respondent and the impugned order is bad under law. The tribunal following the judgment of the supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4993 of 2008 dated 12. 8. 2008, and also Civil appeal No. 4210 of 2003 set aside the impugned order 2. 1. 2004 terminating the services of the applicant and directed that the applicant shall be continued in service as Junior Assistant, with all consequential benefits.