Judgment :- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. This Appeal has been preferred by the National Airports Authority and its officers against the Judgment rendered by the learned single Judge, who allowed the writ petition instituted by the 1st respondent herein. 2. The 1st respondent writ petitioner was appointed as a Sweeper / Safaiwala by the Director, Hyderabad Airport, with effect from 03-12-1971. He was confirmed as such during August 1976. Pursuant to the National Airports Authority Act, 1985 (Act No.64 of 1985), various civil aviation airports have been constituted to form the National Airports Authority of India (henceforth referred to as ‘the Authority’). All the employees of the Civil Aviation Department working, other than in the wings of Airworthiness and Air safety, were permanently absorbed in the service of the Authority with effect from 08-10-1989. All such employees were also entitled to reckon the past service rendered in the Civil Aviation Department. The writ petitioner suffered a setback in his mental health and consequently, he was treated for Maniac Depressive Psychosis. After attaining necessary cure and fitness he submitted a certificate from a competent authority certifying about his fitness for joining duty and accordingly, reported to duty on 16-12-1988 before the Controller of Aerodrome, National Airports Authority, Hyderabad Airport. However, certain clarifications have been sought for as to whether the service of the writ petitioner can be continued with the Authority or not. On 01-09-1989, the writ petitioner was issued with a memo setting out that he has absconded from duty since 17-02-1983 without any permission and though several communications were sent to him he did not respond to any of those calls and hence, he is not entitled to be retained in service. On 11-09-1989, he has been paid his Dearness Allowance arrears for the period prior to his remaining absent from service. An attempt was made in 1992 to pay him the Provident Fund arrears. In those set of circumstances, the writ petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions for his continuance in service. After an elaborate consideration of the entire matter, the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition directing the respondents 2 to 4 in the writ petition to permit him to join duty forthwith as a Sweeper / Safaiwala and pay him all the amounts due to him as stated by him in his writ affidavit. After an elaborate consideration of the entire matter, the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition directing the respondents 2 to 4 in the writ petition to permit him to join duty forthwith as a Sweeper / Safaiwala and pay him all the amounts due to him as stated by him in his writ affidavit. It is this order of the learned single Judge that is now challenged in this Appeal. 3. Heard Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the National Airports Authority, at great length. The learned Standing Counsel would contend that the writ petitioner has made himself scarce and thus, stayed away from the service of the Civil Aviation Department. After a lapse of number of years, he reported to duty with a fit certificate. In the mean time, pursuant to the Provisions contained in the National Airports Authority Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’), certain important changes have taken place. Pursuant to this enactment, the Central Government constituted an Authority called the National Airport Authority, as a body corporate and in terms of Section 12 of the said enactment, one of the important functions assigned to be performed by the Authority relates to management of Aerodromes, the Civil Enclaves and the Aeronautical Communication Stations, efficiently. Further, the Authority constituted by the aforementioned enactment was required to act on business principles. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellants has also drawn pointedly out attention to Section 13 of the Act, which dealt with the issue of transfer of assets and liabilities of the Central Government on to the Authority. By virtue of Sub Section (1) of Section 13, all properties and other assets including the equipment and navigational and ground aids, relating to Air Traffic Services, which were hitherto administered by the Director-General of Civil Aviation, shall vest in the Authority. Sub Section (3) of Section 13 rendered, initially every employee holding any office under the Director- General of Civil Aviation before the commencement of the said enactment, to be treated to be on deputation with the Authority and shall hold the office in the Authority by the same tenure and upon the same terms and conditions of service as respects, remuneration, leave, provident fund or other terminal benefits, as he would have held prior to constitution of the Authority. Sub Section (3) further stipulates that such an employee shall continue to be on deputation with the Authority till the Authority absorbs such an employee in its regular service. The Proviso thereunder reads thus: “Provided further that any such employee, who has, in respect of the proposal of the Authority to absorb him in his regular service, intimated within such time as may be specified in this behalf by the Authority his intention of not becoming a regular employee of the Authority, shall not be absorbed by the Authority.” The learned Standing Counsel for the appellants, therefore, would contend that when once the entire activity of the Ministry of Civil Aviation except the wings of Airworthiness and Air Safety, are transferred by virtue of the provision contained in Section 13 of the statute on to an Authority constituted under the said Act, it is for that Authority to absorb any such former employee of the Civil Aviation Department into its service. In the absence of any such absorption order, no one has got a right to insist the Authority to receive or entertain him to duty. 4. The contention canvassed by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants clearly emanates from the Provisions contained in Section 13 of the Act. As was noticed supra, by virtue of Sub Section (1) of Section 13, the entire sphere of activity hitherto undertaken by the Director of Civil Aviation, except the wings of Airworthiness and Air Safety, stood transferred and vested in a body corporate established by the Central Government called as the National Airports Authority. But, importantly, Sub Section (3) created a fiction by treating all such employees of the former Civil Aviation Department as if they were all sent on deputation to serve the newly constituted Authority. The period of deputation though is not specified therein, but however, Sub Section (3) makes it clear that one will continue to be on deputation till such time he is absorbed into the service of the Authority. Further, the Proviso under Sub Section (3) of Section 13 enables an employee to decline an offer of absorption made by the Authority. Therefore, the option not to get absorbed into the service of the Authority lies only with the employee concerned. Further, the Proviso under Sub Section (3) of Section 13 enables an employee to decline an offer of absorption made by the Authority. Therefore, the option not to get absorbed into the service of the Authority lies only with the employee concerned. To put it differently, the Authority on its own has no choice not to make any proposal, in particular, to absorb an employee nor does it enjoy the freedom to decline to accept the proposal for absorption submitted by an employee. The Parliament, in our considered opinion, has advisedly left the choice with the employee concerned in respect of his absorption into the service of the Authority and has not left any corresponding right to reject the offer of absorption of the employee concerned. The intention is very clear behind the statutory scheme -it is intended to ensure that all the former employees of the Civil Aviation Department, who are deemed initially to have been sent on deputation to the service of the Authority, have a right to seek absorption in the service of the Authority. 5. In the instant case, the writ petitioner has fallen sick while he was working under the control of the Director, Airport Operations, Hyderabad Airport, prior to the National Airports Authority being constituted. Because of his sickness, he was not in a position to attend to duties. By the very nature of the illness suffered, he could not decide anything competently on his own. Therefore, his absence from service cannot be faulted completely. The precarious health condition of the writ petitioner would not have; firstly, enabled him to undertake any avocation meaningfully and; secondly, without ruling out the possibility of harm or injury that might be caused unknowingly by him at work place to others. A competent Psychiatrist has treated him, as can be made out from the medical certificate produced by him. The said medical certificate was also counter signed by a Civil Assistant Surgeon of the Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. Therefore, there is hardly any doubt with regard to the illness suffered by the writ petitioner, which forced him to stay away from work. 6. The 3rd respondent in the writ petition has filed a detailed counter affidavit in the matter. The said medical certificate was also counter signed by a Civil Assistant Surgeon of the Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. Therefore, there is hardly any doubt with regard to the illness suffered by the writ petitioner, which forced him to stay away from work. 6. The 3rd respondent in the writ petition has filed a detailed counter affidavit in the matter. It is not disputed that the writ petitioner was appointed as a Safaiwala with effect from 19-08-1972 in the office of Aerodrome Officer, Civil Aviation Department, Government of India, Hyderabad Airport. However, it was sought to be contended that with effect from 01-06-1986, the date from which the National Airports Authority Act, 1985, was brought into force, all the employees in the Civil Aviation Department were sent on deputation initially and later on they were all absorbed in the service of the Authority. Since, the petitioner was absent from service with effect from 06-12-1983, it is asserted that he was not absorbed in the service of the National Airports Authority and consequently, he was not treated as an employee belonging to the Authority. However, there is no mention as to what measures and steps that have been taken to seek his consent for absorption in the Authority’s service. It will be relevant to notice the following statement made in para 5 of the counter affidavit, which is to the following effect: “ 5.It is submitted that the officer of the controller of Aerodrome NAA was never aware that the petitioner was on its rolls till 16-12-1988 when the petitioner wanted to report for duty along with medical and fitness certificates. ……………….” Thus, it is a case where the writ petitioner was not offered any such absorption in the service of the Authority, nor did he decline to get absorbed in the service of the Authority in accordance with the Proviso to Sub Section (3) of Section 13 of the Act. 7. In view of what has been noticed supra by us, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the discretion exercised by the learned single Judge in allowing the writ petition. But at the same time, one contention, which the learned counsel for the appellants has urged deserves serious consideration at our hands. 8. 7. In view of what has been noticed supra by us, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the discretion exercised by the learned single Judge in allowing the writ petition. But at the same time, one contention, which the learned counsel for the appellants has urged deserves serious consideration at our hands. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao submits that the fact remains that the services of the writ petitioner have not been terminated by the Ministry of Civil Aviation prior to constitution of the Authority. Possibly, without first absorbing him, the Authority can not even terminate his employment either. But however, the writ petitioner was absent from service for a considerably long period of time, that too, for a serious ailment suffered by him. Therefore, the learned single Judge ought to have assessed the feasibility of awarding a suitable amount of compensation instead of ordering for his reinstatement into service. 9. We find considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel. The writ petitioner stayed away from service for a considerably long period of time. During the said period, he may not be in a position to act on his own. His mental condition was such that he could not have decided anything for his own good. Therefore, it is truly an unfortunate case, where equities weigh in equal proportion on both sides. We, therefore, consider it an appropriate case, where a suitable amount of compensation in lieu of reinstatement ought to have been ordered. We consider that a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- would be an appropriate amount, that ought to have been awarded as compensation in lieu of reinstatement and all other terminal benefits other than the amount representing the Provident Fund, for, under the Government Provident Fund Scheme only the employee makes the contributions and the employer does not make any contribution. In other words, the amount accumulated in the G.P.F., account of the writ petitioner is the one, which has been contributed by him, which fetched him interest as well. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we partly allow this Appeal by modifying the operative portion of the order of the learned single Judge by ordering payment of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and all other terminal benefits. We also direct the appellants to release the amount of G.P.F., payable to the writ petitioner. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we partly allow this Appeal by modifying the operative portion of the order of the learned single Judge by ordering payment of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and all other terminal benefits. We also direct the appellants to release the amount of G.P.F., payable to the writ petitioner. The entire amount shall be deposited within two months into an account to be opened by the writ petitioner with any Nationalised Bank, the particulars of which, the writ petitioner was required to intimate to the appellants within a period of fifteen days. No costs.