THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 31465 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner as Fitter under dependent quota or in the alternative in not paying an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs in lieu of providing employment under dependent quota, as illegal and arbitrary, and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Fitter under the dependent quota or in the alternative direct the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs in lieu of providing employment under the dependent quota. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The father of the petitioner, by name Sri U. Rajaiah, was a Coal Filler at SMG-III Incline. While so, his father opted for voluntary retirement on health grounds. As per the scheme existing in the 1st respondent-company, one of the dependents of the employee, who seek voluntary retirement on medical grounds is entitled for compassionate appointment. While opting for voluntary retirement, his father has submitted an application to provide dependent employment to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that he passed ITI in Fitter trade, and also completed apprenticeship. Therefore, he is eligible to hold the post of Fitter in the 1st respondent-company. His further case is that, the application submitted by his father seeking employment of the petitioner was attested and forwarded by the Colliery Manager, SMG- III Incline. But the petitioner was not provided employment whereas others similarly situated persons were provided employment under dependent quota. His further case is that the respondent issued proceedings No.CRP/PER/R/02/95/590 dated 05.08.2011, addressed to the District Employment Oﬃcer to send names for being considered for appointment to the post of Fitter trainee, with a view to ﬁll up the existing vacancies in the respondents-company without considering the case of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner ﬁled this writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent- Corporation submits that the case of the petitioner is very limited in the sense that the petitioner is the son of an ex-employee of the respondents-company who worked as Coal Filler and who retired on medical grounds, and if there is a scheme in the respondent- company for providing employment to the dependents of the employees voluntarily retiring on medical invalidation, then only the petitioner is entitled for consideration of his case. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed material on record to show that the respondent vide proceedings No.P/K2.G/43/1/99/197 dated 17.03.1999 issued by the Agent, KK-2 & SMG-3 Mines, wherein it was stated that the father of the petitioner opted for voluntary retirement on health grounds, in favour of employment to his male dependent. The proceedings also state that the application submitted by the father of the petitioner together with his service particulars and the particulars of the male dependent, photograph of the applicant and his dependent, duly attested by the Colliery Manager, SMG-3 are also enclosed. The counsel further submits that the petitioner has made representation dated 24.10.2011 to the Director (PA & W), requesting to consider his case. The case of the petitioner is that he is the son and dependent of an employee who retired on medical grounds. The proceedings dated 17.03.1999 speaks of the dependency, for consideration and providing employment. So far, the case of the petitioner is not provided employment. In view of the above circumstances and, notwithstanding the fact that the respondent-company called names from the employment exchange, the respondents-company are directed to consider the case of the petitioner’s representation dated 24.10.2011 independently, and in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH 02nd December, 2011 KSM