1 APHC010356772017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 27547/2017 Between: R.K. Vasu, ...PETITIONER AND Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam Tirupati and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P SRAVAN KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. C SRINIVASA BABA 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 27547 of 2017 Order:- This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief: <to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent issued in Roc.No.TL7/ 10995/ 2014, dt.8.12.2016, 22.7.2016 and 30.1.2016 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in terms of Go.Ms.No.295, General Administration (Services - A) Department, dt.23.9.2014 and pass such other or further orders as the Hon'ble Court feels deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.= 2. Heard Sri P.Sravan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.V.S.Prasada Varma, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, hereinafter referred to as <TTD=. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s mother, while working as a Sanitary Inspector in the TTD, died in harness on 20.08.2014. Consequent upon her death, the petitioner, being the son of the deceased, made an application to the respondents seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. However, by way of an intimation dated 30.01.2016, the said application was rejected by respondent No.1 on the ground that 3 the petitioner’s request for employment on compassionate grounds could not be considered in terms of the guidelines issued vide G.O.Ms.No.759, GAD, dated 06.01.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the respondent authorities, while relying upon G.O.Ms.No.759, GAD, dated 06.01.2007, rejected the claim of the petitioner by ignoring the latest G.O.Ms.No.295, dated 23.09.2014, whereunder the age limit was enhanced from 34 years to 40 years by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. According to the petitioner, the rejection order passed by the respondents is not in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.295, dated 23.09.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 02.08.2016, referring to the guidelines contained in G.O.Ms.No.295, dated 23.09.2014. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of TTD vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and disputed the age of the petitioner, contending that even according to the averments made in the writ affidavit, the petitioner’s age is beyond 40 years. The dependency of the petitioner is also disputed. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that the intimation dated 30.06.2016, 4 rejecting the claim, was issued by taking into consideration G.O.Ms.No.759, GAD, dated 06.01.2007, and not the latest G.O.Ms.No.295, dated 23.09.2014, which was in vogue as on the date of passing of the rejection order. 5. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that the rejection of the petitioner’s claim for appointment on compassionate ground was made only in terms of the guidelines issued vide G.O.Ms.No.759, GAD, dated 06.01.2007, and that the respondents did not take into consideration G.O.Ms.No.295, dated 23.09.2014, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the intimation dated 30.01.2016 vide Roc.No.TL7/10995/2014, passed by the respondents, is hereby set aside. The petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh representation to the respondents, enclosing all relevant documents. Upon receipt of such representation, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh, taking into consideration the guidelines enunciated vide G.O.Ms.No.295, dated 23.09.2014, and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the said representation. 5 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed. _____________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM,J 08.01.2026. ASR 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO.27547 of 2017 08.01.2026 ASR