Non-Reportable  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)

Vs.

The Superintending Engineer, AMRP Circle & Ors. … Respondent (s)

J U D G M E N T

R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

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-

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

2

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

3

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)

New Delhi; ………………………J. August  12, 2008. (Lokeshwar Singh Panta)

4