Miss Lucy
← All judgments

V.M.Satyanarayana vs The Supdt.Engr., Amrp Circle & Ors

Supreme Court12 August 2008Lokeshwar Singh Panta · R V Raveendran

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The scheme for compassionate appointment of dependants of government servants on medical invalidation, as contained in the Government Orders dated 30.7.1980, 4.7.1985 and 9.6.1998, is valid and constitutional, and termination of services of an appointee under this scheme following a Full Bench judgment that declared the scheme unconstitutional does not stand if that Full Bench judgment is subsequently overruled. A government servant whose services have been terminated pursuant to a judicial order that is subsequently set aside is entitled upon reinstatement to continuity of service and notional increments for the period of termination, but not to actual salary for the period during which he did not work.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

Non-ReportableIN 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)

JUDGMENT

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- 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)

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

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free