Posted On by &filed under Andhra High Court, High Court.


Andhra High Court
Y.V.N. Durga Prasad vs Commissioner Of Endowments And … on 27 July, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998 (5) ALT 314
Author: S Maruthi
Bench: S Maruthi


ORDER

S.V. Maruthi, J.

1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the first respondent refusing to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds.

2. The petitioner’s father who was an employee of the second respondent Institution namely Sri Durga Malleswara Swamyvari Devasthanam, Vijayawada sought voluntary retirement on health grounds at the age of 53 years, the date being 2-8-1995. For that vacancy the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. The Executive Engineer who is the competent authority, recommended his case for appointment on consideration of the eligibility of the petitioner. The first respondent rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that the wife of the father of the petitioner is also employed and they are not legally separate though they are living separately and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment. Aggrieved by the same the present Writ Petition is filed.

3. The fact that the father of the petitioner retired before the age of superannuation is not in dispute. Therefore, the vacancy caused by the retirement of the father is available for appointment. The petitioner being the son of the father is entitled for consideration in the said vacancy.

4. The Counsel for the respondent had contended that the case of the petitioner can be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds under Medical Invalidation Scheme. The Government has issued G.O.Ms. No. 214 (GAD) dated 9-6-98 under which a District Level Committee is constituted which has to screen the appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore, the petitioner’s case should be referred to the said Committee.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the G.O. has no retrospective effect and in support of his contention he relied on A. Ksheera Sagar v. A.P. Dairy Development Coop. Federation Ltd., wherein it was held that pending applications should be considered in accordance with law on the date on which the applications are pending and any subsequent change in the law cannot be complied with. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted at the most the petitioner is entitled for consideration and not for direct appointment. While the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Executive Officer who is the competent authority under Section-35 of the A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 has already considered the eligibility of the petitioner and therefore, the question of further consideration does not arise.

6. The fact that the father of the petitioner retired on medical grounds is not in dispute. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for appointment in that vacancy. Section-35 of the A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 empowers the Executive Officer to appoint officeholders and Servants in the Religious Institutions whose annual income exceeds Rupees ten lakhs. The Executive Officer has already considered the case of the petitioner and recommended for his appointment to the Commissioner. Therefore, the question of further consideration by the Executive Officer who is the appointing authority does not arise. Consequently, the Executive Officer is directed to appoint the petitioner in the vacancy that is caused on account of voluntary retirement of his father.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is right in his contention that G.O.Ms. No. 214 dated 9-6-98 cannot be given retrospective effect and all the applications that were pending should be considered in accordance with law that was in force on the date on which the right of appointment is accrued. Since the petitioner’s right for appointment accrued on 2-8-1995, his right for appointment should be considered in accordance with law that was in force on 2-8-1995 and not by applying G.O.Ms. No. 214 dated 9-6-1998.

8. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed and the Executive Officer is directed to appoint the petitioner in the vacancy that was caused on account of retirement of his father. No Costs.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

107 queries in 0.163 seconds.