IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5762 of 2008 Between: Mirza Afzal Baig, S/o. Late Mirza Ibrahim Baig, R/o. H.No.18-1-393, Tadlakunta, Chandrayangutta, Keshavgiri Post, Hyderabad-05 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Red Hills, Hyderabad-500 004. (APCPDCL) Rep. by its Director (HR & Comml) / Chief General Manager (HRD). 2 The Superintending Engineer (Operation) A.P.C.P.D.C.L., South Circle, Mint Compound, Greater Hyderabad. .....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 a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to Memo No.C.G.M.(Comml)G.M.(Per)/A.S.(Estt)/328-H3/2007, dated 13.08.2007 of the 1st respondent - Director (HR & Comml.) A.P.C.P.D.C.L., Red Hills, Hyderabad and set aside the same as it is highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and void and violation of principles of Natural Justice and violation of Article 311 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment forthwith in any of the suitable post i.e. clerk / class IV on compassionate grounds in lieu of the death of his father. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.NAGESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5762 of 2008 ORDER: The father of the petitioner, by name Mirza Ibrahim Baig, was employed as a Lineman in the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board. He died on 25.03.1990, while in service. The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board has since been re-organized and its activities are now being undertaken by the A.P.Transco, A.P.Genco and as many as five distribution companies. The petitioner filed an application before the 1st respondent, with a request to appoint him on compassionate grounds. Through Memo, dated 13.08.2007, the 1st respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner, stating inter alia that the petitioner is not eligible, in terms of the orders contained in Memo, dated 21.02.1991. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Sri K. Nageswara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client was a minor, when the employee died, and the application was made, soon after he became major. He contends that the respondents ought to have employed the petitioner on compassionate grounds. He placed reliance upon Judgment of the Supreme Court in Mukesh Kumar vs. Union of India[1] and some other precedents. Sri Balarama Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the writ petition is barred by laches and even on merits also, the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable. He contends that the very purpose of introducing and implementing the scheme, to provide compassionate appointment, is to enable the family to overcome the situation, caused on account of the sudden demise, and the same situation cannot be expected to remain even after 18 years. He further contends that the application itself was submitted nearly after more than one and half decades. Basically, the claim of the petitioner and other members of the family was against the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board. The employee died way back on 25.03.1990. Wherever, the schemes for providing employment on compassionate grounds exist, the applications therefor are required to be made immediately after the death and not later than one or two years. The underlying principle is that the members of the family must be rescued from the immediate penury caused on account of the sudden demise. If the facility is to be extended even after decades, it tends to become a matter of succession. That was never the intention of the scheme. Further, once the application of the mother was not acted upon, the petitioner cannot claim any superior right over her. The grievance, if at all, ought to have been in relation to consideration of the application of the mother. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the impugned Memo. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 27.03.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5762 of 2008 Date: 27.03.2008 JSU [1] 2007 (10) SCALE 543