IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15832 of 2008 Between: K.Srinivasa Rao S/o.late Rajendra Prasad Medisettivaripalem Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C. R.T.C. X-Roads, Hyderabad, Represented by its Managing Director. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. West Godavari Region, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. East Godavari Region, Rajahmundry, East Godavari 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 to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner as conductor Grade-II under Bread Winner Scheme as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as conductor Grade-II under Bread Winner Scheme and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BADANA.BHASKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15832 of 2008 ORDER: The father of the petitioner was employed in the A.P.S.R.T.C. He died in harness in the year 2002. The petitioner submitted an application to the respondents, with a prayer to provide him employment on compassionate grounds under the Bread Winner Scheme, that was in vogue. On a consideration of the application, the 2nd respondent addressed a letter, dated 02.03.2005, to the petitioner stating inter alia that there are no vacant posts in his native District and in case, he is willing, his case would be considered for the vacancy in the East Godavari Region. The petitioner, in turn, submitted his willingness in the prescribed proforma to the 2nd respondent. His grievance is that no action has been taken thereon and he seeks appropriate directions in this regard. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, stating inter alia that though the Bread Winner Scheme was in vogue up to the year 2001, it was discontinued in view of the orders issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Ms.No.36, dated 05.09.2001. Reference is also made to the Judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.110 of 2008, dated 14.03.2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The respondents do not dispute that the father of the petitioner was employed in the A.P.S.R.T.C., and died while in service. The application submitted by the petitioner under the Bread Winner Scheme was processed and the 2nd respondent called for the option of the petitioner to work in a different region, vide proceedings dated 02.03.2005. This, naturally gives an impression that the respondents proceeded as though the Scheme is in vogue. The stand taken by them in the counter affidavit that the scheme is not in force, in view of the ban imposed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.36, does not accord with their action. If a ban was operating, there was no occasion for the 2nd respondent to call for the option of the petitioner as late as on 02.03.2005. Even assuming that there was communication gap between the 2nd respondent and the Head Office, from the counter affidavit, it is evident that the Government has since revised its policy vis-à-vis the scheme providing compassionate appointments, in view of the recent orders passed in G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 22.02.2008, which is referred to in the counter affidavit. It is true that a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.110 of 2008 held that the respondents cannot be compelled to provide employment on compassionate grounds, to the dependants of the deceased employees, in view of G.O.Ms.No.36. The purport of G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 22.02.2008, was not taken into account, obviously because it was not there at the relevant point of time. The fact remains that having issued proceedings, dated 02.03.2005, and received the option of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent did not pass any orders. Now that the Government has also changed its policy, the 2nd respondent can make his stand clear on the application made by the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders, in pursuance of the proceedings, dated 23.02.2005, issued by him, duly taking into account, the purport of G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 22.02.2008, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 14.08.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15832 of 2008 Date: 14.08.2008 JSU