IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1182 of 2002 And W.A.M.P.NO.745 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 24.06.2002 in WP NO:2815 OF 2002 on the file of the High Court.) Between: M.Sai Ram Prasad, S/o. M.S.Murthy, R/o. Poranki, Vijayawada. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Sathupally Depot, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.V.JAGAPATHI Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.G.JYOTHI KIRAN The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This writ appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in dismissing W.P.No.2815 of 2002 dated 24.06.2002. By means of ﬁling the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the appellant/writ petitioner seeks to declare proceedings No.E1/1/(59)/2000-SPL, dated 23.12.2000 issued by the Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Sathupally Depot as arbitrary and illegal and for a consequential direction to pay all the retrial benefits of his father Sri Manikonda Satyanarayana Murthy and for a further direction to consider his case for compassionate appointment on the ground that his father is missing from 31.07.2000, and his whereabouts are not known in spite of a complaint lodged with the police, Sathupally Police Station, which was registered as Crime No.70/2000. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that except stating that the father of the writ petitioner is missing from 31.07.2000, there is no other material placed before the Court to substantiate the same and in the absence of any material, Mandamus prayed as such cannot be issued to consider his representation. Hence the present writ appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation. The fact that the appellant lodged a complaint with the police at Sathupally Police Station stating that his father is missing from 31.07.2000 when he went to attend the duty at Sathupally Depot and since then his whereabouts are not known, on which basis a case in Crime No.70 of 2000 was registered, is not in dispute. It is the case of the appellant that since the whereabouts of his father are not known, and his mother died about 15 years back, he being the only son, he is totally dependent on his father and hence his case may be considered for compassionate appointment and also for the retirement beneﬁts of his father, as he came to know that his father was removed from service by proceedings dated 23.12.2000 on the ground of unauthorized absence from the duty from 31.07.2000 onwards. It is well settled that unless the legal right of the petitioner is established, issuance of Mandamus directing that the petitioner may be given compassionate appointment, cannot be granted. Further the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the inmates of the family of the deceased employee to tie over the sudden ﬁnancial crisis but not to provide employment. Mere death does not entitle his family to claim compassionate appointment. Pending the Writ Appeal, the appellant also ﬁled WAMP No.745 of 2008 to direct the respondents to consider his representation, dated 20.08.2007 to release the terminal beneﬁts etc. on account of missing of his father from 31.07.2000. Even as per the appellant’s own admission the whereabouts of his father are not known from 31.07.2000 and therefore a legal presumption cannot be drawn under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that the burden of proving that the person is alive who has not been heard of for seven years, to claim compassionate appointment. Hence there is no cause of action as such arose for claiming compassionate appointment in the year 2002 in the above writ petition. In the absence of any legal right, the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition, which does not warrant any interference. The Writ Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. It is needless to say that if the appellant’s father is not returned, it is always open for him to make a representation before the Corporation for the beneﬁts, if any, he is entitled to and which has to be considered by the Corporation in accordance with the policy in force. In view of dismissal of Writ Appeal, no further orders are necessary in WAMP No.745 of 2008. Accordingly the WAMP is also dismissed. ​___________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY,J) _________________________ (VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J) 13th October, 2008 Js. ………………. REGISTRAR To 1 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Sathupally Depot, Khammam District. 3 2 CD copies