ORDER: 1. The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in rejecting the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment, under the scheme of Medical Invalidation Vide impugned Roc.No.4891/2010-A6, dated 3-5-2021 of the 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated: 3.5.2021 by declaring that, the petitioner herein is entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds in any suitable post, as per the G.O.Ms.No.661 GAD, dated 23.10.2008 and consequential Circular Memo. No.43785/Ser.G/2010-5, dated 12-12-2011 and also as per the final orders passed in W.P.3912/2011 and batch cases dated 02-04-2014 and orders passed in WP (TR) No.3723/2017, dated 01.07.2019 and pass such other order or orders ….”. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that father of the petitioner was appointed as lift operator in Government General Hospital, Kakinada, on 15.02.1971 and in the year, 1974, he was promoted as Record Assistant. Petitioner’s father retired from service w.e.f. 13.08.2001 under the scheme of medical invalidation. Petitioner, after his father’s retirement, made representation, dated 22.09.2001 seeking compassionate appointment for the post of Junior Assistant or any other suitable post as per G.O.Ms.No.504, GAD, dated 30.07.1980 wherein compassionate appointment was provided to the son/daughter/spouse of government employee who retires from service on medical grounds. Petitioner possesses degree qualification and hence, he is eligible for the post of Junior Assistant. Pending consideration of petitioner’s representation, dated 22.09.2001, Full Bench of composite High Court, by order, dated 12.10.2001 passed in W.P.No.13489 of 2000, struck down the scheme provided under G.O.Ms.No.504, GAD, dated 30.07.1980 holding that the scheme of medical invalidation is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Pursuant to the said order, government issued G.O.Ms.No.202, GAD, dated 27.04.2022 dispensing with the scheme of compassionate appointment. Against order, dated 12.10.2001 in W.P.No.13489 of 2000, aggrieved parties filed SLP (Civil) No.4210 of 2003. Pending the SLP, aggrieved parties made a request to the Government to consider for compassionate appointment in respect of pending cases prior to the abolition of the scheme. Against order, dated 12.10.2001 in W.P.No.13489 of 2000, aggrieved parties filed SLP (Civil) No.4210 of 2003. Pending the SLP, aggrieved parties made a request to the Government to consider for compassionate appointment in respect of pending cases prior to the abolition of the scheme. However, Government issued G.O.Ms.No.44, dated 17.02.2003, considering the pending cases for appointment as Panchayat Secretaries on contract basis. Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Kakinada addressed letter to the District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada vide Rc.No.1307/E2/05, dated 29.03.2003 submitting proposal for appointment of the petitioner to the post of Panchayat Secretary as dependent of government employees, who retired from service on medical invalidation before 27.04.2002. Acting upon said letter, petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Secretary vide proceedings Roc.No.1547/03-A1, dated 07.06.2003, on contract basis for a period of one year. Petitioner joined as Panchayat Secretary and the contract was extended from time to time. By proceedings No.01/05-A1, dated 27.07.2005, petitioner was posted as Panchayat Secretary, Z.Bhavaram Gram Panchayat. By Memo No.71010/Mdl.II/A2/ 04-1, dated 16.06.2004 Principal Secretary to Government communicated to all the Collectors to continue Panchayat Secretaries appointed on contract basis under Medical Invalidation Scheme, until further orders. While the matter stood thus, by proceedings in Roc.No.1621/2006/A1, dated 19.09.2006 issued by the Collector (Pt. Wing) East Godavari District, Kakinada, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.246 GA (Ser G) Dept., dated 30.05.2006, fifteen Panchayat Secretaries appointed on contract basis (from the candidates available under the category of Government employees retired on Medical invalidation) were removed from their service with immediate effect. Subsequently, by proceedings in Roc.No.1621/2006/A2, dated 03.05.2008, issued by District Collector (PT. Wing), East Godavari District, Kakinada, concerned M.P.D.Os. were directed to admit petitioner along with others as Panchayat Secretaries on contract basis subject to the terms and conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.124 PR & RD (Mdl.II) Dept., dated 02.04.2008. However, according to the petitioner, he did not join service in view of illness. As the matter stood thus, SLP (Civil) No.4210 of 2003 was allowed on 12.08.2008. The operative portion of said order reads thus: “We therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court (dated 12.10.2001). We also set aside the orders of the Tribunal, though on different grounds. We uphold the validity of the compassionate appointment scheme (contained in G.O.Ms.No.504, G.A.(Ser.A) Department, dated 30.07.1980, G.O.Ms.no.309, G.A.(Ser.A) Department dated 04.07.1985 and G.O.Ms.No.214, G.A.(Ser.A) Department, dated 9.6.1998, as clarified in Govt. We also set aside the orders of the Tribunal, though on different grounds. We uphold the validity of the compassionate appointment scheme (contained in G.O.Ms.No.504, G.A.(Ser.A) Department, dated 30.07.1980, G.O.Ms.no.309, G.A.(Ser.A) Department dated 04.07.1985 and G.O.Ms.No.214, G.A.(Ser.A) Department, dated 9.6.1998, as clarified in Govt. Memo.No.36299/Ser.A/99 dated 25.6.1999) providing that the period of five years of left over service should be reckoned from the date of issue of the order of retirement on medical invalidation and not from the date of application for retirement on medical invalidation. As the scheme was withdrawn by Govt. Memo Dated 27.04.2002, to give effect to the impugned decision of the High Court, the state Government is at liberty to revive the scheme with or without modifications”. Pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court, Government issued G.O.Ms.No.661 GAD, dated 23.10.2008 reviving the scheme of compassionate appointment. By issuing circular memo No.43785/Ser./2010-5, dated 12.12.2011 clarified that G.O.Ms.No.661 has prospective effect. In view of the clarification the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment on regular basis since his claim is pending prior to 27.04.2002. Petitioner could not report to duty within time due to his illness. Thereafter, petitioner submitted several representations, dated 21.06.2014, 04.02.2015 and 29.06.2015 to respondent No.4 by registered post seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, but the authorities refused to appoint petitioner as Panchayat Secretary. Therefore, petitioner again made representation, dated 14.02.2019 requesting to consider his case for compassionate appointment on regular basis under the scheme of medical invalidation. Since the same was not considered, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.22935 of 2020 and this Court by interim order, dated 04.12.2020 directed the respondents to consider petitioner’s representation, dated 14.02.2019, as per law. Subsequent to said interim order, respondent No.4 vide proceedings impugned rejected petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.4 refuting the petitioner’s case. It is stated that as per the orders of this Court in W.P.Nos.22935 of 2020 and 13567 of 2021, speaking orders were issued to the petitioner vide Roc.No.4891/2010 A6 Pts., dated 03.05.2021 informing that petitioner was provided employment on compassionate grounds and re-appointed as Pancahayat Secretary under the scheme of medical invalidation scheme. However petitioner neither joined duty within the stipulated time nor submitted any application seeking extension. It is stated that after expiry of two years, he submitted representation along with medical certificate. However petitioner neither joined duty within the stipulated time nor submitted any application seeking extension. It is stated that after expiry of two years, he submitted representation along with medical certificate. After considering petitioner’s representation, it was rejected. Petitioner received said speaking order and acknowledged receipt of the same. However, petitioner filed present writ petition suppressing the facts. 4. Reply affidavit is filed on behalf of the petitioner. While reiterating the averments of the writ affidavit, stated that the main reason assigned by the authorities for not considering petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment is that petitioner failed to join duty within fifteen days when he was reappointed as Panchayat Secretary on contract basis vide proceedings, dated 03.05.2008, as such he is not entitled. It is stated that G.O.No.129, dated 01.07.2007 is not applicable to the petitioner as he is not an employee of the State Government and he is un-employee seeking compassionate appointment as his father retired under medical invalidation scheme. Since, the scheme was revived vide G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23.10.2008 and clarification given vide circular memo No.43785/Ser.G/2010-5, dated 12.12.2011, petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment. 5. Heard M.R. Tagore, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-IV. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when respondents did not consider pending cases prior to 27.04.2022, O.A.No.12874 of 2009 and batch were filed and the same were allowed with a direction to consider for compassionate appointment on regular basis in respect of pending cases. Learned counsel would place reliance upon common order, dated 02.04.2014 passed in W.P.No.3912 of 2011 and batch, which were filed by the Government against order(s) in O.A.No.12874 of 2009 and batch and contend that the respondents ought to have considered petitioner’s case on compassionate ground, as per G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23.10.2008. He would also submit that rejection order of the respondent No.4, dated 04.12.2018 is nothing to do with the petitioner’s claim seeking appointment on compassionate grounds under medical invalidation scheme to the post of Junior Assistant or lesser cadre. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the observations of the Division Bench in W.P.No.3912 of 2011 and batch, wherein Division Bench observed as under: “There cannot be any dispute that the Scheme for compassionate appointments, which is available as on the date of the applications of the applicants, has to be followed.” 8. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the observations of the Division Bench in W.P.No.3912 of 2011 and batch, wherein Division Bench observed as under: “There cannot be any dispute that the Scheme for compassionate appointments, which is available as on the date of the applications of the applicants, has to be followed.” 8. Learned counsel tried to persuade the Court with regard to observation of the Division Bench which reads thus: “So, by the date of withdrawing the Scheme, the applications of the applicants were pending before the Government for consideration. In view of the same, the law or Scheme, which was prevailing as on the date of pendency of the applications of the applicants, can only be taken into consideration.” 9. He would also contend that appointment of petitioner as Panchayat Secretary on contract basis is nothing to do with the compassionate appointment and appointment on contract basis is only an arrangement. 10. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader would contend that petitioner’s father retired from service on 13.08.2001 and petitioner made representation on 22.09.2001 seeking appointment as per G.O.Ms.No.504 of 2013, dated 30.07.1980 and subsequent government orders. However, he would submit that, by virtue of order in W.P.No.13489 of 2000, dated 12.10.2001, Government Order was struck down by the High Court against which SLP was preferred. He submits that pending the SLP, Superintendent of General Government Hospital, Kakinada, submitted proposal to the District Collector to appoint petitioner as Panchayat Secretary on contract basis as a special case i.e. for providing employment to the dependents of the Government employees, who retired from services on medical invalidation before 27.04.2002. He submits that as per G.O.Ms.No.44, dated 17.02.2003, petitioner was considered for appointment as Panchayat Secretary on contract basis and by proceedings in ROC No.1547/03/A1, dated 17.06.2003, petitioner and others were appointed as Panchayat Secretaries. He further submits that though petitioner and others were terminated, they were again appointed as Pachayat Secretaries vide proceedings ROC No.1621/2006/A2, dated 03.05.2008. However, petitioner did not join duties and made representation on 20.08.2010 seeking appointment as Panchayat Secretary either in Karapa Mandal or in Kajuluru Mandal. Eventually, the case of the petitioner was rejected vide proceedings dated 04.12.2018 and the same was communicated to the petitioner. He submits that petitioner without disclosing the same, made representation to consider his case in the light of G.O.Ms.No.661 and eventually the same was rejected. Eventually, the case of the petitioner was rejected vide proceedings dated 04.12.2018 and the same was communicated to the petitioner. He submits that petitioner without disclosing the same, made representation to consider his case in the light of G.O.Ms.No.661 and eventually the same was rejected. He would submit that there are no merits in the writ petition and hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 11. The point to be considered is whether petitioner is entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds (medical invalidation scheme) in terms of G.O.Ms.No.504, dated 30.07.1980? 12. There is no dispute regarding retirement of petitioner’s father on medical grounds on 13.08.2001. On the date when petitioner’s father retired, G.O.Ms.No.504, dated 30.07.1980 is in existence. Petitioner made application seeking appointment/ implementation as per G.O.Ms.No.504, G.A.(Ser.A) department, dated 30.07.1980, G.O.Ms.No.309, G.A.(Ser.A) Department, dated 04.07.1985 and G.O.Ms.No.214, G.A. (Ser.A) Department, dated 09.06.1998. However, the scheme under G.O.Ms.No.504 was struck down, by order, dated 12.10.2001 in W.P.No.13489 of 2000. The order of High Court was set aside by the Hon’ble Apex Court by order, dated 12.08.2008 in SLP (Civil) No.4210 of 2003. Pursuant to the said order of the Hon’ble Apex Court, Government issued G.O.No.661 GAD, dated 23.10.2008 reviving the scheme and by circular memo No.43785/Ser./2010-5, dated 12.12.2011, it was clarified that G.O.Ms.No.661 is prospective in nature. 13. The object of appointment of family members under medical invalidation scheme is to see that family of retired employee will not starve because of his retirement. When the scheme was struck down by the High Court, SLP was preferred and pending SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court, Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Kakinada addressed letter to the District Collector to consider the proposal of the petitioner for the post of Panchayat Secretary. As per G.O.Ms.No.44, dated 17.02.2003, petitioner’s case was considered and petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Secretary. Petitioner, in fact, worked as Panchayat Secretary in different stations. 14. It is also not in dispute that services of the petitioner along with others, who were appointed on contract basis, were terminated by the Government in the year, 2006. However, by proceedings in ROC No.1621/2006/A2, dated 03.05.2008, all the persons who were terminated earlier were reappointed. But, petitioner could not avail the opportunity. Since petitioner could not join services pursuant to proceedings, dated 03.05.2008, District Panchayat Officer, addressed letter to the Commissioner vide Roc No.4891/2016/A2 to pass appropriate orders. 15. However, by proceedings in ROC No.1621/2006/A2, dated 03.05.2008, all the persons who were terminated earlier were reappointed. But, petitioner could not avail the opportunity. Since petitioner could not join services pursuant to proceedings, dated 03.05.2008, District Panchayat Officer, addressed letter to the Commissioner vide Roc No.4891/2016/A2 to pass appropriate orders. 15. A perusal of the record shows that petitioner, seems to have made representations, dated 22.08.2008 and 10.03.2010 requesting to grant time to join. Representation, dated 22.08.2008 is not admitted by the Government. However, Government is accepting representation, dated 10.03.2010, but the date is 20-8-2020. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that representation was made on 22.08.2008, nothing is filed to substantiate the said contention. Petitioner filed representation, dated 10.03.2010 said to have been sent to the authorities, along with writ petition. However, as can be seen from the counter affidavit, representation of the petitioner, requesting to consider his case and appoint him as Panchayat Secretary either in Karapa Mandal or in Kajuluru Mandal is dated 20.08.2010, which is received by the authorities on 21.08.2010. Finally petitioner made representation, dated 14.02.2019 and approached this Court and learned Single Judge of this Court directed the authorities to consider the same. 16. Though learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that appointment of the petitioner on contract basis as Panchayat Secretary is nothing to do with the scheme initiated pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.504, dated 30.07.2011, 309 G.A.(Ser.A) Department, dated 04.07.1985 and G.O.Ms.No.214 G.A. (Ser.A) Department, dated 09.06.1998, in the opinion of this Court, petitioner, in fact, was appointed as Panchayat Secretary by virtue of letter, dated 29.03.2003 addressed by Secretary, Government General Hospital to the District Collector, on the basis of dependents of Government employees retired from service on medical invalidation before 24.07.2002. Petitioner was reappointed as Panchayat Secretary vide proceedings, dated 03.05.2008. Thus, petitioner availed the benefit of compassionate appointment provided under medical invalidation scheme. 17. A perusal of the proceedings impugned would indicate that the petitioner could not avail opportunity of joining the office within a period of fifteen or thirty days pursuant to the orders, dated 03.05.2008. 18. Petitioner was reappointed as Panchayat Secretary vide proceedings, dated 03.05.2008. Thus, petitioner availed the benefit of compassionate appointment provided under medical invalidation scheme. 17. A perusal of the proceedings impugned would indicate that the petitioner could not avail opportunity of joining the office within a period of fifteen or thirty days pursuant to the orders, dated 03.05.2008. 18. A perusal of Memo No.13130/Mdl.I/A2/2016 would indicate that as per Rule 11(a) of the Andhra Pradesh State Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, a candidate who is appointed by direct recruitment either through the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission or through any other agency, shall be required by the appointing authority to join in the post for which he has been selected within a period of thirty working days. If the candidate does not join the post within the stipulated period of thirty days, the appointment shall be treated as automatically cancelled and the name of the candidate shall be deemed to be deleted from the list of approved candidates. Further as per G.O.Ms.No.144, PR & RD Department, dated 01.05.2003, the selected candidate should report to duty within fifteen days time from the date of appointment. 19. However, vide Memo No.PRR 02-12021/24/2018-B1-CPR & RD/678233, dated 04.12.2018, office of Director of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Nakkala Road, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada-02 informed the petitioner that his case was rejected vide proceedings in Memo No.13130/Mdl.I/A2/2016, dated12.10.2018 of the District Panchayat Officer, East Godavari District. 20. After passing of the order referred to supra, without disclosing the fact that rejection order, dated 04.12.2018, communicated to the petitioner, petitioner made representation, dated 14.02.2019 to consider case of the petitioner in the light of G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23.10.2008. Complaining non-consideration of the representation, petitioner filed W.P.No.22935 of 2020. In W.P.No.22935 of 2020, learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 04.12.2020, directed the respondents to consider representation of the petitioner, dated 14.02.2019 for appointment of petitioner on compassionate grounds as per law, within three weeks. Pursuant to the said order, respondent No.4 issued proceedings vide Roc.No.4891/2010-A6, dated 03.05.2021 rejecting the representation, dated 14.02.2019 for appointment on compassionate grounds under the scheme of Medical Invalidation as the individual did not join within the stipulated time. A careful perusal of the events would disclose that petitioner suppressed material fact i.e. rejection of his claim by proceedings, dated 04.12.2018. A careful perusal of the events would disclose that petitioner suppressed material fact i.e. rejection of his claim by proceedings, dated 04.12.2018. As observed supra, since the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Secretary, under medical invalidation scheme, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner’s case was not considered as per the medical invalidation scheme falls to ground. This Court does not find any perversity in the proceedings impugned. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 21. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.