V.ESWARAIAH, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No.6120 of 2005 dated 6.11.2008, the State filed this writ petition.
(2.) Respondent filed the said O.A. seeking to consider her case for compassionate appointment, by setting aside the Memo No.3824/629/Al/Admn.III/04, Finance (Admn .III) Department, dated 14.12.2004, and the same was allowed. It was the case of respondent that she is the daughter of late A. Jagan Mohan Rao, who died in harness, on 27.2.1999, while working as Mandal Revenue Officer and so her younger brother Sri A.V.R.K. Sharma was given compassionate appointment in June 1999. To the misfortune of the respondent, her brother Sri A. V.R. K. Sharma also died in a road accident while returning from office, on 12.11.2003. The respondent's mother made an application for consideration of the respondent's case for appointment on compassionate grounds in February 2004 within the stipulated time as per G.O. Ms. No.687, G.A. (Ser.A) Department, dated 3.10.1977, i.e. within one year. It is her case that she is a post graduate in M. Com., and is eligible for appointment to any post on compassionate grounds. But her case was rejected by the Government vide Memo No.3824/629/Al/Admn.III/04, Finance (Admn .III) Department, dated 14.12.2004, on the ground that as per the orders of Government in G.O. Ms. No.612 G.A. (Ser. A) Department dated 30.10.1991, if the deceased employee remains unmarried, only the younger brother/sister of such employee is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment and that there is no provision for compassionate appointment to the elder sister. It is further stated therein that as per the orders in G.O. Ms. No.400 G.A. (Ser. A) Department dated 12.9.1996, no application for relaxation of any of the conditions stipulated under the scheme is entertained by the Government. Aggrieved by the said memo, the respondent filed the said O.A.
(3.) The undisputed facts of the case are that the deceased employee is the brother of respondent and the deceased died in harness on 12.11.2003 in a road accident while working as Junior Accountant in the office of the Sub Treasury Officer, Polavaram, West Godavari District, and that the respondent's mother made an application within the stipulated time under the scheme for compassionate appointment and that there are no other legal heirs in the family, except the respondent's mother and the respondent who is unmarried sister of the deceased. It is stated that the mother of the deceased employee is aged more than 50 years and she is not eligible for compassionate appointment and so she only requested for providing appointment to the respondent on compassionate grounds. There is no dispute that the respondent being the unmarried elder sister of the deceased employee and dependent on the deceased employee. There is also no dispute with regard to the existence of the scheme for compassionate appointment. But the dispute is with regard to the eligibility and entitlement of the respondent on such grounds inasmuch as she being the elder sister of the deceased employee. She being the elder unmarried sister of the deceased employee, the Tribunal considered that if the respondent is denied the compassionate appointment, the family of the deceased employee will be deprived of the benefit of (he scheme for providing compassionate appointment and it amounts to discrimination. Therefore, the action of the Government in rejecting the request of the respondent by interpreting the G.O. Ms. No.612 dated 30.10.1991 as illegal and unsustainable and it is further held that there is no any need to relax the conditions as is said in G.O. Ms. No.400 dated 12.9.1996, but only it is the case of wrong interpretation of the order of the Government in G.O. Ms. No.612 dated 30.10.1991. The Tribunal, therefore, by order dated 6.11.2008 allowed the O.A., setting aside the Memo No.3824/629/Al/Adrrm.III/04, Finance (Admn. lII) Department, dated 14.12.2004 where by the case of the respondent for consideration to the compassionate appointment was rejected, by holding that the respondent is entitled for compassionate appointment.;