ORDER
1. The petitioner’s father was initially appointed in the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short ‘the Board’) as Helper and later he was promoted as Assistant Lineman. The petitioner’s father met with a non-fatal accident on 26-8-1994 and had undergone treatment at Amatapuram, Kakinada and finally at NIMS, Hyderabad. The mother of the petitioner made a representation to the Superintending Engineer for providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner in terms of the scheme contained in B.P.Ms. No. 247, Personnel Services, dated 17-3-1989 and earlier orders issued on the subject. The said representation was rejected by the Superintending Engineer on the ground
that the father of the petitioner was having only 4 years and 3 months and 8 days of balance of service on the date of his retirement on medical invalidation ground, instead of five years of balance service as required in B.P.Ms.No. 247, dated 17-3-1989. Hence, this writ petition assailing the validity of the order passed by the Superintending Engineer-the 2nd respondent herein.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that when the petitioner’s father met with non-fatal accident on 26-8-1994, that day itself, he became totally incapacitated and disabled to continue in the post, and therefore it is quite reasonable and fair for the Board to reckon five years of service w.e.f. 26-8-1994 and not w.e.f. 22-6-1996 the day on which the petitioner was discharged from service on the ground of medical invalidation by passing the Office Order. It is pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the Board that the petitioner was on leave between 26-8-1994 and 22-6-1996 and he was receiving wages and this fact is not controverted by the petitioner’s Counsel. It is relevant to note that the petitioner’s father applied for retirement on medical invalidation enclosing a medical certificate dated 25-4-1996 issued by an Orthopaedic Surgeon, obviously, after 254-1996. There is not much delay on the part of the Board in referring the case of the petitioner to the Medical Board. The Medical Board examined the petitioner on 14-6-1996 and certified that the petitioner’s father is completely and permanently incapacitated for further service. In pursuance of this Invalidation Certificate issued by the Medical Board, the petitioner was discharged from service on 22-6-1996.
3. The relevant regulations governing the discharge of an employee on the ground of medical disablement read as under;
“If the Medical Committee declares the employee to be completely and permanently incapacitated for further service, the employee should, accept as provided in class (c) below, be invalided for the service
either on the expiration of the leave already granted to him, if he is on leave when examined by the Committee, or if he is not on leave from the date of relief of his duties which should be arranged without delay on receipt of Valid Medial Certificate from approved authority.”
4. This regulation makes it very clear that certification by the Medical Committee that the employee is completely and permanently incapacitated for further service is necessary for the Board to retire or discharge the employee. In other words, such certification should precede the retirement. The Medical Board certified that the petitioner was completely and permanently incapacitated for further service only on 14-6-1996, and acting on the said certification, the management discharged the petitioner from service on 22-6-1996 by passing the Office Order. B.P.Ms. No.247, dated 17-3-1989 makes it very clear that only those dependants of the retiring employee on the ground of medical invalidation who had more than five years of balance service on the date of retirement are entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. In the present case, the petitioner’s father was retired from service on the ground of medical invalidation only on 22-6-1996, and till 22-6-1996 the petitioner’s father was an employee of the Board. If 22-6-1996 is the date of retirement, admittedly, the petitioner’s father had no balance of five years of service as envisaged under B.P.Ms.No.247. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek appointment on compassionate ground in terms of B.P.Ms .No.247, dated 17-3-1989. Now it is well settled position in law that in granting compassionate appointment, the provisions of the scheme which govern such appointment should be adhered to and the Court cannot issue a direction or a mandamus in violation of the terms of the scheme to provide appointment on compassionate ground to a dependant of the employee dying in harness.
5. In me result, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.