THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No.1821 of 2005 JUDGMENT (Per Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) is in appeal aggrieved by the order dated 07.06.2005, whereby the learned single Judge allowed W.P.No.6981 of 1998 directing it to pay monetary benefits to the respondent in lieu of employment on compassionate grounds on the death of her husband, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. It is an admitted fact that the respondent’s husband, who was a driver in the APSRTC, died in harness on 31.12.1990. When she sought appointment of one of her sons on compassionate grounds, the APSRTC admitted her son, by name M. Krishna Goud, in a basic training course. However, he died on 14.01.1997 before completion of the training. Thereupon, the respondent filed an application seeking payment of monetary benefits in lieu of compassionate appointment. The said application was rejected by the APSRTC under letter dated 03.05.1997, on the ground that the respondent was not eligible for monetary benefits as her son had been selected for undergoing training and he expired during the course. No other ground was mentioned in the letter of rejection. Assailing the said rejection, the respondent filed W.P.No.6981 of 1998 before this Court. The learned single Judge found that the clarification issued by the APSRTC, extracted in para 8 of its counter, made it clear that once the dependant, who was admitted in a training course, was not absorbed in the service of the APSRTC, extra monetary benefits could be granted. It is on this basis that the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the respondent was entitled to be paid the additional monetary benefits in lieu of compassionate appointment and accordingly directed so. Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC, sought to support the rejection under letter dated 03.05.1997 by raising a new ground to the effect that the respondent’s other son was already in the employment of the APSRTC and therefore, she was not entitled to payment of extra monetary benefits in view of the other clarification issued by the APSRTC in its Circular PD.No.P1/510(1)84-PD dated 21.01.1987. It is however to be noticed that this ground was not mentioned in the letter of rejection dated 03.05.1997, wherein only the aspect of the respondent’s son, who had been inducted in the training course, having expired was cited as a ground for denying the respondent the monetary benefits. In the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in MOHINDER SINGH GILL v. THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI [1], it is not open to the APSRTC to raise a new ground, which is not reflected in the impugned order, by way of its counter affidavit. The impugned order would necessarily have to be tested on the grounds mentioned therein and not upon a new ground sought to be supplemented thereafter in support thereof. That being so, insofar as the cited ground of rejection is concerned, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge. The clarification issued by the APSRTC itself demonstrates the entitlement of the respondent to additional monetary benefits after her son died during the training and prior to his absorption in service. The order dated 07.06.2005, passed in W.P.No.6981 of 1998 is accordingly confirmed. The Writ Appeal is dismissed but, in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date.02.08.2011 sj [ [1] AIR 1978 SC 851