IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23542 of 1999 Between: M. Imam Saheb … Petitioner AND A.P. Transco, Hyderabad, rep., by its Chairman & Managing Director, & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : None Counsel for the respondents: Sri P.R. Balarami Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23542 of 1999 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not giving employment to the petitioner under compassionate appointment scheme, as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard Sri P.R. Balarami Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. The petitioner’s father was an employee of the erstwhile APSEB. As he died in an accident in course of his employment, his elder brother, namely, Sri M. Abdul was provided with compassionate appointment as Junior Lineman. The said person died due to ill-health on 25.09.1997. The petitioner made a representation to the respondents to extend the scheme of compassionate appointment to him by providing employment in place of his deceased brother. By proceedings dated 17.02.1999, respondent No.1 rejected the said request on the ground that the petitioner is not eligible for being provided with employment on compassionate grounds, as he was the brother of the deceased employee. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is averred that B.P.Ms.No.119 dated 10.02.1982 envisaged compassionate appointment and that it is only the members of the family, who are described therein, that are entitled for the benefit of the scheme. The relevant part of the B.P.Ms.No.119 is extracted in para 8 of the counter affidavit, which reads as under: “(i) A child i.e., a son or a daughter or spouse of a deceased board employee who dies inharness leaving his family in indigent circumstances while in service be appointed as LDC or equivalent post, Attender and Record Assistant without the media of employment exchange, subject to the condition that there being no other earning member in the family. (ii) A child i.e., a son or daughter or spouse of a board employee who is retired on medical invalidation while in service under Article 441 of A.P. Pension Code (Vol.I) as adopted by the APSEB board be appointed under the scheme subject to the following conditions: (1) This concession of compassionate appointment shall be allowed only in exceptional cases, where the appointing authority is satisfied that the condition of the family is indigent and in great distress. (2) The eligible person shall be appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk or equivalent post or Attender or Record Assistant strictly with reference to the qualifications, age etc., as prescribed in the A.P. State Electricity Board Service Regulations. (iii) The appointment should be against a regular vacancy only. (iv) Applications for appointment from such eligible persons shall be entertained only within a period of one year from the date of occurrence of death or date of retirement on medical invalidation of the Board employees, as the case may be. (v) Relaxation to educational qualifications or age cannot be given under any circumstances. (vi) The appointments made under this scheme should be treated as distinct category in itself and not related to employment exchange procedure as well as rule of reservation. A note shall be made of these appointments specifically by the appointing authorities in appropriate terms to the effect that the appointments have been made in terms of the said B.P. and that they have no relation to rosters. The roster position shall however be followed in the normal course without taking into account the appointments made under this scheme. (vii) The appointments should be in the same unit against the regular vacancies only. (viii) It is immaterial whether the board employee who died or retired on medical invalidation was on leave or on deputation or on other duty or on training or under suspension. The only point is that he/she should not have retired from service in the normal course on attaining the age of superannuation. (ix) Dependents of employees borne on contingent establishment, N.M. Rolls or casual labour are eligible for employment under this scheme. (x) The board will not entertain proposals for creation of supernumerary posts under any circumstances. Pursuant to the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.612, dated 30.10.191 orders were issued in APSEB for providing employment to the adopted children of the deceased board employees in Memo No.DP/Dm9RNT/PO/C1/5042/94, dated 25.10.1994. The provision of providing employment to the younger brother/sister of deceased Government servant made in G.O.Ms.No.612, dated 30.10.1991 has not been adopted by the APSEB.” In view of the fact that the brother of the deceased employee is not covered by the Board proceedings, the petitioner is not entitled to the employment and I find no illegality in the impugned rejection made by respondent No.1. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.29552 of 1999 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 19.12.2008 ES