HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.26033 of 2003 Dated 7.6.2011 Between: Smt. Rahmath Bee and another. …Petitioners. And: The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C. Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.26033 of 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue an order or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the proceedings dated 13.12.2000 is wholly illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same and consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the 2nd petitioner to the post of Cleaner/Attender/Shramic or any other suitable post on compassionate grounds. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows: The husband of the 1st petitioner late Sri Md.Kasim was appointed as Helper on 1.6.1963 in the Respondent-Corporation. He died during the course of his employment on 19.7.1998 leaving his wife and seven children. Consequent to the death of the deceased, the entire family was subjected to starvation. The Corporation has introduced Breadwinner scheme under which the son/spouse/dependants of the deceased employee were given suitable employment. Hence, the 1st petitioner who is the wife of the deceased made an application to the respondents for appointment of the 2nd petitioner who is her son for the post of Cleaner/Attender or any other suitable post on compassionate grounds. However, there was no action from the respondent-Corporation. On the advise of the 1st respondent-Corporation, when the 1st respondent approached the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent stated that her application was registered for consideration to the post of Sharmik under bread winner scheme. Finally, the 1st respondent-Corporation issued proceedings dated 13.12.2000 stating that the case of the 1st petitioner for providing employment to her son 2nd petitioner, cannot be considered to the post of Cleaner/Attender/Sharmik since there are no Sharmik vacancies existing in Kurnool Region and directed to claim additional monetary benefit in lieu of employment. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioners filed W.P.No.20909 of 2001 before this Court. The respondent- Corporation filed a counter in the said writ petition stating that there was a total ban imposed in the corporation for all direct recruitment posts and that there are no posts of Sharamic/Cleaner in Kurnool Region. This Court dismissed the writ petition directing the petitioners to avail the monetary benefits. However, the petitioners have not availed the monetary benefits till date. Respondents filed counter in which it is stated as follows: After the death of the husband of the 1st petitioner, the petitioner submitted that a representation to the corporation on 27.12.1999 seeking employment under Bread Winner Scheme for which the respondent-Corporation gave a reply on 13.12.2000 stating that she can claim additional monetary benefit in lieu of employment since there are no vacancies for the post of Shramiks. Without claiming additional monetary benefit, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.20909 of 2001 seeking employment under Bread Winners’ Scheme. On 3.11.2002, this Court dismissed the writ petition directing the petitioner to avail the monetary benefit. However, the petitioners did not make any application for the said benefit. The petitioners once again filed the present writ petition claiming for employment in view of the circular issued by the Corporation on 23.4.2003 which has no application to the case of the petitioners as the 2nd petitioner was not kept in the selection list of Bread Winner Scheme. As such, he cannot claim the benefit for recruitment. Further, in the earlier occasion, this Court has already directed the petitioners to claim the additional monetary benefit only and that order has become final. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. On 16.12.2003, this Court while admitting the writ petition, granted interim directing the respondents to consider the case of the 2nd petitioner to the post of Cleaner/Attender/Shramic or any other suitable post in pursuance of the proceedings issued by the 1st respondent dated 25.4.2003. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the respondent-Corporation issued proceedings dated 25.4.2003 identifying certain vacancies for filling on compassionate grounds. In that view of the matter, the 2nd petitioner is eligible for appointment, being senior, as his father died as long back as on 17.7.1998, but his name was not enlisted. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC contends that the said circular has no application to the case of the petitioners and the name of the petitioner was not enlisted for appointment. It is for the Corporation to enlist all eligible candidates and consider the case of all eligible candidates. It is apt to reproduce para 2 of G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 16.6.2010, issued by the Government, which reads as under. “The Compassionate Appointments are therefore governed as per orders communicated in the reference cited. As per the existing orders in force, the dependents of the employees dying while in service get ex-gratia if they are not eligible for compassionate appointment. If the dependent family member is eligible for compassionate appointment then the appointment is considered based on the availability of vacancy and fulfillment of eligibility criteria. In such a case no ex-gratia amount is payable to the dependent. However certain representations have been made by some of the dependents of the deceased employees seeking payment of ex-gratia amount instead of compassionate appointment due to their own personal reasons, even though they are eligible for compassionate appointment as per rules. However, as per the present rule position in the matter, the above representations are not feasible for consideration by the Government. In order to rectify this anomaly, the Government decided to make a provision, where the dependent if eligible for compassionate appointment can either choose to get ex-gratia amount or employment under compassionate appointment as the same is considered fair and just as not all dependents may seek employment and may be satisfied by getting the ex-gratia amount due to their own personal reasons.” In the above premise and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I feel it just and proper to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in appointing the 2nd petitioner to the post of Cleaner/Attender/Shramic or any other suitable post on compassionate grounds, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 7.6.2011. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.26033 of 2003 Dated 7.6.2011