IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22574 of 2000 Between: Smt.S.Fatima, W/o late S.Mahaboob, R/o 11/262, Kagitala Peta Po, Cuddapah District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC, Rep by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep by its Regional Manager, Cuddapah Region, CUDDAPAH. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in rejecting the case of the petitioner for the post of Sweeper/Cleaner/Shramik/ Attender or for any suitable post on compassionate grounds vide Proc.No.E1/329(26)/2000-RM, Cuddapah dt.23-10- 2000 is illegal, unjust and consequently direct the respondents herein to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of cleaner/Shramik/Sweeper/Attender or in any suitable post on compassionate grounds forthwith in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order of rejection passed by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings No.E1/329/(26)/2000-RM, Cuddapah, dated 23-10- 2000 by which her claim for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected. The husband of the petitioner was working as a Helper in Cuddapah Depot of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the Corporation’). On the ground that he died in harness while in service on 04-05-2000 and in view of the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds known as ‘bread winner scheme’, the petitioner submitted her application for appointment to the post of water woman, sweeper or attendar or any other equivalent post under the said scheme. But, her application was turned down by the impugned order stating that the post of water woman is not existing in the Corporation and so far as the posts of sweeper/attendar are concerned, there is a ban on the recruitments. It is stated that for appointment to the post of Conductor, the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualiﬁcations and that she is entitled only for additional monetary benefit. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though there are regular vacancies, the claim of the petitioner was rejected without considering her claim in proper perspective as per the scheme. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondents, it is categorically stated that there is a ban imposed on recruitments. They have also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in APSRTC v. Kaiser Begum[1] wherein the Supreme Court reversed the order of this Court upholding the ban imposed on the recruitments. The factum of imposition of ban on recruitments as stated in the counter aﬃdavit is not controverted by the petitioner by ﬁling any reply aﬃdavit. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Regional Manager, APSRTC & another v. M. Sampoornamma[2] was pleased to hold that even if any vacancies exist during the operation of a bona ﬁde policy decision for not making any fresh appointment, no direction can be given for appointment on compassionate grounds. The apex Court was also pleased to hold that once it is found that the decision of the employer not to make any fresh appointment is bona ﬁde, it would not be proper for the Court to issue directions for appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore, the said judgment squarely applies to the case on hand. Since it is stated that there is a ban on recruitments, no direction can be issued for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, as it is stated in the rejection order that the petitioner is entitled for additional monetary beneﬁt, I consider it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to make an application to the 2nd respondent for additional monetary beneﬁt within a period of four weeks from today. If any such application is ﬁled seeking additional monetary beneﬁt, her claim shall be examined and ﬁnal decision shall be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such an application. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Dated: 11-11-2008 ks ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The APSRTC, Rep by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep by its Regional Manager, Cuddapah Region, CUDDAPAH. 3 2CD copies [1] 1998 (9) SCC 398 [2] 1999 SCC L&S 1162