V.M.Satyanarayana Vs.
The Supdt.Engr., Amrp Circle & Ors. [2008] INSC 1352 (12 August 2008)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4993 OF 2008 (Arising out
of SLP (C) No.8348 of 2006) V. M. Satyanarayana ... Appellant (s) The
Superintending Engineer, AMRP Circle & Ors. ... Respondent (s)
R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J.
1.
Leave
granted. Heard the learned counsel for both sides.
2.
The
appellant's father who was working as a Senior Assistant in the Government of
Andhra Pradesh, made an application on 3.2.2001 seeking permission to retire on
medical invalidation as he was suffering from total blindness due to
hypertension. On 22.3.2001, the Medical Board issued a certificate for medical
invalidation. When the application was under process, the appellant, as
dependant son, made an application-cum- 2 representation to provide him
appointment under the compassionate appointment on medical invalidation scheme
(contained in GO dated 9.6.1998 read with earlier GOs of the state government).
The said scheme provided for compassionate appointment to a dependant son,
daughter, spouse of a government servant who retired on medical invalidation.
3.
On
30.6.2001, the Government of Andhra Pradesh accepted the application of
appellant's father and permitted him to retire from service on medical
invalidation with immediate effect. By order dated 10.5.2002, petitioner was
appointed as Junior Assistant under the scheme for compassionate appointment
contained in the GO dated 9.6.1998.
4.
In
the meanwhile, a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court by its judgment
dated 12.10.2001 in WP No.13489/2001 and connected cases (Government of Andhra
Pradesh vs. D. Gopaiah) declared that there can be no appointment on
compassionate grounds in cases other than death of employees in harness and
that the scheme for compassionate appointment of a dependant of an employee on
medical invalidation was unconstitutional.
The State Government
by GO dated 27.4.2002 gave effect to the said decision of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court by dispensing with the scheme 3 for compassionate appointment on
the ground of medical invalidation. By a subsequent GO dated 17.7.1972, it was
clarified that any appointment made on compassionate grounds subsequent to the
Full Bench decision will have to be cancelled even if such appointment was in
regard to a medical invalidation prior to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court. In view of it, the appellant's services were terminated by Office
Order dated 1.9.2003.
5.
The
appellant challenged his termination in OA No.5902 of 2003 before the Andhra
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the said application on
28.2.2006. The appellant challenged the order of the Tribunal in WP No.4983 of
2006. The High Court dismissed the said petition by order dated 17.3.2006 in
view of the decision dated 12.10.2001 of the Full Bench in the case of D.
Gopaiah (supra) The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.
6.
We
have today rendered a separate judgment in V. Sivamurthy vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh (CA No.4210 of 2003 decided on 12.8.2008) wherein we have set aside the
judgment dated 12.10.2001 of the Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in D.
Gopaiah. We have also held that the 4 scheme for compassionate appointment of
dependants of government servants on medical invalidation as per GOs dated
30.7.1980, 4.7.1985 and 9.6.1998 is valid. It therefore follows that the
termination of services of the appellant by order dated 1.9.2003 (in pursuance
of the Full Bench decision dated 12.10.2001) cannot stand and requires to be
set aside.
7.
The
appeal is therefore allowed. The judgment of the Tribunal dated 28.2.2006 and
judgment of the High Court dated 8.3.2006 are set aside. The OA filed by the
appellant before the Tribunal is allowed and the termination of the appellant's
service by letter dated 1.9.2003 is set aside. As a consequence, the appellant
shall be reinstated in service. On the facts and circumstances, though the
appellant will be entitled to continuity of service and notional increments, he
will not be entitled to any salary for the period he has not worked.
.............................J.
(R V Raveendran)
...........................J.
New
Delhi;
Back
Pages: 1 2 3
