IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6821 of 2000 Between: K.Yugendhar, S/o. Late K.Poli Naidu, R/o. Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Regional Manager, Vizianagaram Region, Vizianagaram District. .....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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2nd respondent herein in rejecting my claim for appointment on Compassionate grounds stating that since my mother is employed in the Corporation, I am not entitled for appointment on the sudden demise of my father is unjust and as such the rejection Proc.No.P3/684(3)/99-RM, Vizianagaram dt. 5-7-99 is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice consequently direct the Respondents herein to appoint the petitioner as Conductor/ Cleaner forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents : MR.C.APPAIAH SARMA The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6821 of 2000 ORAL ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order, dated 05-07-1999, in proceedings No.P3/684(3)/99-RM, VZM, passed by the Personnel Officer, office of the Regional Manager, Vizianagaram Region, of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity “the Corporation”), rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in the service of the respondent Corporation. 2. The father of the petitioner, namely K. Poli Naidu, while working as Cleaner in the Corporation at Parvathipuram Depot in Vizianagaram District, died in harness on 31-10-1998. Consequent upon his death, the petitioner has made an application, dated 28-12-1998, for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds in any suitable post as per the scheme governing the appointments on compassionate grounds. However, through the impugned proceedings, dated 05-07-1999, the request of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the mother of the petitioner, by name Smt. K.Seethamma, is already employed as Sweeper with Staff No.457873. 3. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that he is residing separately and, therefore, he is entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the scheme. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Corporation. While denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the Selection Committee has scrutinized the application of the petitioner and called him for the interview. After verification, it was found that the mother of the petitioner, namely Smt. K.Seethamma is also employed in the Corporation, working as Sweeper at Parvathipuram Depot and that as per the scheme, namely “Bread Winner Scheme”, the benefit can be extended if none of the family members of the deceased is in service. Since the mother of the petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased, is working as Sweeper in the Corporation, the petitioner is not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds under the said scheme. 5. It is not in dispute that one of the conditions of the scheme notified as “Bread Winner Scheme” contemplates that the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds can be extended only in cases where none of the family members are in service. Since the mother of the petitioner was already in the service of the Corporation, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. 6. Further, in REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC v. M.SAMPOORNAMMA[1] a n d STATE BANK OF INDIA v. SOMVIR SINGH[2], the Apex Court has categorically held that the claim of the dependent of the employee, who died in harness, is to be examined within the framework of the scheme only and there is no special or additional claim or right for appointment on compassionate grounds. 7. Further, it is also to be noted that, as submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, the above said scheme is not in operation and they are extending the benefit in terms of money in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds. 8. Therefore, in view of the reason assigned in the impugned order, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, which is in conformity with the conditions as notified in the scheme, and also in view of the judgments of the Apex Court, referred to above, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief of appointment on compassionate grounds. 9. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner or any other member of the family of the deceased employee is eligible for any monetary benefit, this order will not preclude them to claim such a benefit. In case, any application is made claiming such monetary benefit, the respondent Corporation is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders as per the applicable Circulars, in this regard. 10. Subject to above observations and directions, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 26-11-2008. Msr HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6821 of 2000 26-11-2008 Msr [1] (1999) SCC (L&S) 1162 [2] (2007) 4 SCC 778