JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Dr. Sastry Jandhyala along with Dr. Suri Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Srinivasa Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for the respondents. 2. This petition has been filed for the following main prayer: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents in not considering the ‘Compassionate Appointment’ and issuing the impugned Endorsements vide Ref.No.B2/329/2018 dated 14.12.2018 & 24.09.2018 issued by the Respondent No.3 & No.4 by not considering my representations vide dated 18.07.2018, 15.03.2021 & 09.04.2021 for appointment on compassionate grounds due to death of my mother, on the ground that my father is a pensioner, as illegal and arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights enshrined under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India pass such other orders as deems fit and necessary.” 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that by the impugned order, the petitioner’s representation for appointment on compassionate ground on the death of the petitioner’s mother during service period has been rejected on two grounds. One that the petitioner is over age as the petitioner’s age is 35 years and the upper age limit, as per the Circular Memo No.60681/Ser.A/2003- 1, dated 12.08.2003 shall be 33 years for Open Category, and secondly that the petitioner's father is getting pension. 4. Circular Memo No.60681/Ser.A/2003-1, dated 12.08.2003 has been placed before the Court by the learned Assistant Government Pleader after giving copy thereof to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The same is taken on record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, with respect to the first ground, submits that the Circular Memo, dated 12.08.2003 under clause-VI thereof specifically provides that if giving of compassionate appointment requires relaxation of age, necessary proposal should be sent to the concerned administrative department in the Government for taking necessary action for relaxation of the age, and in view thereof, instead of rejecting the petitioner's representation on the ground of age, the proposal should have been forwarded to the concerned administrative department in the Government. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits, with respect to the second ground, that the Circular Memo No.3548/Ser.G/A2/2010-8, dated 24.03.2012 provided that when one of the parents of the dependant/applicant for compassionate appointment is in service or in receipt of service pension and family pension, and lump sum retiral benefits, the dependent is not entitled to seek compassionate appointment, since there is no financial distress. However, the circular dated 24.03.2012 was set aside in O.A.Nos.3012/2015 and 1125/2017 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by judgment dated 20.02.2018, and has further placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.27465 of 2017 decided on 30.08.2017 in support of his contention that grant of pension to the father cannot be a ground to reject the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment. 7. Sri M. Srinivas Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the clause IV of the Circular Memo No.60681/Ser.A/2003-1, dated 12.08.2003 providing for the proposal for age relaxation is applicable to the case of the spouse of the deceased. He has further placed reliance on Circular Memo, dated 24.03.2012 to submit that in view thereof the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. 8. In response the petitioner’s counsel has placed reliance upon G.O.Ms.No.246, dated 10.06.2016 Revenue Services II Department of A.P. Government, G.O.Ms.No.58, dated 08.07.2013 Higher Education UE 1 Department of A.P. Government, G.O.Ms.No.450, dated 10.10.2017 Revenue Services II Department of A.P. Government, G.O.R.T.No.781, dated 23.07.2016 Revenue Services III Department of A.P. Government, G.O.R.T.No.779, dated 23.07.2016 Revenue Services III Department of A.P. Government, G.O.R.T.No.486, dated 26.07.2016 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (G1) Department of A.P. Government, G.O.R.T.No.1096, dated 02.12.2014 Revenue Services III Department of A.P. Government, G.O.R.T.No.992, dated 13.10.2020 Home Legal Department of A.P. Government, G.O.Ms.No.No.26, dated 01.03.2008 Environment, Forests, Science and Technology (For.V) Department of A.P. Government, G.O.R.T.No.90, dated 12.12.2015 Municipal Administration and Urban Department (D2) of A.P. Government, to submit that vide those Government Orders in various departments, the Government granted relaxation of upper age limit with respect to particular candidates. He submits that not only relaxation was granted for few months or few years, but in many cases, the relaxation was granted up to 6 to 10 years. He submits that not only relaxation was granted for few months or few years, but in many cases, the relaxation was granted up to 6 to 10 years. He has further placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.62 dated 30.05.2016 Water Resources Services IV Department of A.P. Government to submit that vide said Government Order, age relaxation in the upper age limit for 11 months 8 days was granted in the matter of compassionate appointment itself. The copy of the Government Orders has been brought on record by way of additional affidavit vide I.A.No.1 of 2022, which have not been disputed. 9. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 10. The short point involved is as to the entitlement of the petitioner for consideration for compassionate appointment on the death of his mother and consequently the legality of the order under challenge. 11. The first ground of rejection is that the petitioner is overage. 12. The Circular Memo No.60681/Ser.A/2003-1, dated 12.08.2003 i.e. “The scheme of compassionate appointment to the dependants of Government employees who died in harness and who are found missing and whereabouts not known” (in short, the scheme) has been framed as a social security measure to help families of the deceased Government Employees as is clearly set out in Paragraph I of the scheme. 13. Paragraph VI of the scheme provides for the eligibility rules and reads as under:- “VI. ELIGIBILITY: (a) The maximum age limit shall be 33 years for Open Category, and for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Backward Classes 5 (Five) years age concession shall be given. (b) The qualifications as prescribed in the Rules for the post for which the compassionate appointment is made; (c) The eligibility of the candidate in terms of his/her educational qualification has to be reckoned with the date of application of the dependent of the deceased Government Employee for appointment, as the applications for appointment from such persons shall be entertained within a period of one year from the date of occurrence of the death of Government servant. (d) The spouse of the deceased employee may be appointed initially on temporary basis by the appointing authority after being allotted by the nodal agency concerned and if such an appointment requires relaxation of age, necessary proposal should be sent to the administrative department concerned in Government for taking further action for relaxation of the age rule.” 14. The circular is for grant of job in Government Service on compassionate ground as a social measure to one of the dependant family member. It is fairly well settled that the object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable family to tide over sudden crisis. Such appointment is exception to general rule of appointment in public services and is in favour of dependants of deceased Government employees dying in harness and leaving his family in penury. 15. Under the scheme, one of the dependent family members of the deceased government employee who died in harness, is eligible for compassionate appointment. The dependant family member in Para No.2 Clause (b) means (a) spouse and (b) son/daughter of regular Government employees. The scheme therefore is not confined to grant of compassionate appointment to the spouse only. The son/daughter is also eligible. Keeping in view, the object behind the scheme and the definition of the dependant family members, Paragraph VI Clause (a) (d) as quoted above, requires consideration, to achieve the object of the scheme. 16. The maximum age limit, as per clause (a) shall be 33 years for open category. In the view of this Court, Clause (d) cannot be read with respect to relaxation of age, only in favour of spouse. It provides that the spouse of the deceased employee may be appointed initially on temporary basis by the appointing authority after being allotted by the nodal agency concerned. ‘If such an appointment’, in the later part of Clause (d), in the view of this Court refers to the ‘Compassionate appointment’ and cannot be restricted to initial appointment on temporary basis in favour of spouse. Such ‘initial appointment on temporary basis’ is also a compassionate appointment. ‘If such an appointment’, in the later part of Clause (d), in the view of this Court refers to the ‘Compassionate appointment’ and cannot be restricted to initial appointment on temporary basis in favour of spouse. Such ‘initial appointment on temporary basis’ is also a compassionate appointment. Therefore, ‘such an appointment’ in Clause (d), refers to compassionate appointment and as compassionate appointment under the scheme can be given to son/daughter also, if in his/her case, also, relaxation in age, is required, necessary proposal should be sent to the administrative department concerned of the Government for taking further necessary action for relaxation of the age rule. 17. Any other view i.e. only in favour of spouse, and not in favour of the other eligible dependant member of the family of the deceased, to consider grant of relaxation in age rule, will not secure the object of the scheme and there will be no intelligible differentia to discriminate between spouse and son/daughter of the deceased falling in the same category of family members of the deceased nor any nexus with the object to be achieved by the Scheme i.e. social security by providing an employment to the family of the deceased. 18. Paragraph VIII (ii) of the Scheme provides that “the compassionate appointment shall be against direct recruitment quota”. 19. In view of the Government Orders, upon which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, annexed to the additional documents, the Court finds that the Government decided to enhance the upper age limit for direct recruitment to 42 years from 35 years to the various categories of posts notified by all the recruiting agencies in the state of Andhra Pradesh for certain period which was extended from time to time. If such relaxation can be granted for the upper age against the direct recruitment post, for compassionate appointment also against direct recruitment post, age relaxation in the upper age can be considered, particularly when Paragraph No.4 Clause (d) provides for the same and in one case vide G.O.Ms.No.62 dated 30.05.2016, such relaxation in upper age with respect to the compassionate appointment was granted in favour of some other candidate. 20. 20. I find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that instead of rejecting the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment on the ground of age, the proposal should have been forwarded to the concerned department in Government to consider for relaxation in age rule. 21. With respect to the second ground of rejection, in Para Nos.8 and 9 of the petition, it has been stated that the G.O. dated 24.03.2012 has been set aside, to which there is no specific denial in the counter affidavit. 22. In W.P.No.16242 of 2013, the Division Bench of this Court held as under :- “Yet another defence is taken by the learned counsel that as the wife of the deceased is getting family pension, the applicant is not entitled for compassionate appointment. But the same cannot be accepted. Merely because family pension is being paid to the wife of the deceased, the same is not a ground to deprive the benefit of compassionate appointment under this scheme notified by the Government for the children of the deceased who dies in harness. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any valid ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks time to comply the directions issued by the Tribunal and to issue appointment order to the applicant. In view of the request, two months time is extended from today to comply the directions by issuing an appointment order to the applicant. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. No costs.” 23. Following the said judgment, a coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.27465 of 2017, in which the G.O. dated 24.03.2012 was involved, held as under :- “It is to be seen that the Division Bench while dealing with the similar issue arising out of order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, held as follows; “Yet another defence is taken by the learned counsel that as the wife of the deceased is getting family pension, the applicant is not entitled for compassionate appointment. But the same cannot be accepted. But the same cannot be accepted. Merely because family pension is being paid to the wife of the deceased, the same is not a ground to deprive the benefit of compassionate appointment under this scheme notified by the Government for the children of the deceased who die in harness.” In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner and take action accordingly. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed.” 24. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order in the present case, cannot be sustained, which is hereby quashed. A direction is issued to the respondent No.4/Deputy Commissioner, Department of Commercial Taxes, West Godavari District, to reconsider the petitioner's case for appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with law and to forward the requisite proposal to consider grant of relaxation in age rule to the 1st respondent/Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue (Commercial Taxes), Amaravathi/Competent Authority. The respondent No.1 is also directed to consider the grant of relaxation of age rule by a reasoned and speaking order. 25. The petitioner is granted liberty to file fresh representation annexing all such documents including copy of the various Government Orders relied upon, along with copy of this order, before the respondent No.2 within a period of four (04) weeks from today. 26. Let the entire exercise be completed by the respondents within a period of three (03) months from the date of presentation of fresh representation as aforesaid. 27. This petition is partly allowed, with the aforesaid observations and directions. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.