HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17166 of 2000 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents in not considering his case for appointment on compassionate ground, as illegal. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that his late father P.Ramchandram was working as a Traﬃc Cleaner in the respondent-Corporation. It is stated in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition that while in service, the father of the petitioner had died in harness on 15.11.1995. It is also stated that during his lifetime, the late father of the petitioner has ﬁled writ petition No.17928 of 1988, along with six others, seeking directions to the respondents to consider their claim for regularization of their services. Though regularization was ordered in respect of other persons, who ﬁgured along with the father of the petitioner in the writ petition, but the service of his father was not regularized, as his father had expired. It is the grievance of the petitioner that but for untimely death of his father, his service would have been regularized. 3. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondents, while denying various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the father of petitioner was working as a casual worker in the Corporation but he was not takein into regular service of the Corporation. It is further stated that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in writ petition No.17928 of 1988, though notices were issued to the petitioners therein to appear before the selection committee to consider their claim for regularization as per the directions issued by this Court, but as the father of the petitioner did not appear before the selection committee, his services were not regularized. In the counter aﬃdavit it is further stated that asmuch as the compassionate appointment scheme was regulated by circular instructions, as per which, the children of the regular employees who die in harness alone are eligible for appointment on compassionate ground, but as the late father of the petitioner was a casual worker, the petitioner is not entitled for such appointment. 4. It is now well settled that appointments relationg to compassionate ground, are to be considered within the framework of the scheme notiﬁed by the Organization. Even according to the petitioner, his late father was not in regular service and his services were not regularized, by the time he died i.e. on 15.11.1995. As the scheme notiﬁed by the Corporation by way of circular instructions was only limited to the children and spouses of the regular employees who died while in service, and as the late father of the petitioner was not appointed to regular service of the Corporation, the petitioner is not entitled for any appointment on compassionate ground. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 26th August 2008 ajr