THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.4015 OF 2009 Dated: 08.09.2009 Between: P. Ramesh @ S. Ramesh … Petitioner And 1. The Divisional Engineer, Electrical (Operation Circle) APCPDCL, Charminar, Hyderabad; and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.4015 OF 2009 ORDER: The father of the petitioner herein by name Pentaiah, who was working as Assistant Lineman with the Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. died on 07.01.2002 while in service. Since the respondents insisted on producing a Legal Heir Certificate from the competent Civil Court so as to release the service benefits to which the deceased was entitled to, the petitioner along with his mother and brothers and sisters filed O.P.No.3120 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the II-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The said petition was opposed by one Sugunamma claiming to be legally wedded wife of the deceased Pentaiah. After hearing both the parties, the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by order dated 29.10.2007 allowed O.P.No.3120 of 2004 holding that the petitioners therein are entitled to a Succession Certificate to enable them to draw the amount of Rs.3,58,768/- along with accrued interest thereon and the monthly pension. The petitioner claims that on the basis of the order in O.P.No.3120 of 2004, he made a representation requesting the respondents to appoint him in any suitable post on compassionate grounds. It is stated that the petitioner passed S.S.C. and also possessed Driving License and therefore he is eligible for compassionate appointment in any suitable post. Alleging that the respondents failed to consider his request, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the inaction of the respondents in appointing the petitioner in any suitable post on compassionate grounds is arbitrary and illegal. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit has been filed in which the fact that the petitioner’s father P. Pentaiah died on 7.1.2002 while in service is not disputed. However it is stated that the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment only on 10.03.2008, six years after the death of his father. As per Scheme vide BPMS.No.119, dated 10.2.1982, and BPRT.No.36, dated 8.5.1996, the employment to the dependents of the Board Employees can be provided on an application submitted within one year from the date of death of the employee and the person should become eligible for employment within the two years from the date of death of the employee. It is further stated that as against the order dated 29.10.2007 in O.P.No.3120 of 2004, the rival claimants Smt. Sugunamma and others preferred an Appeal before this Court and by order dated 1.5.2008 in CMAMP.No.998 of 2008 interim stay has been granted subject to certain conditions and the Appeal is still pending. In the Reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, while disputing the plea of the respondents that the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment only on 10.3.2008, it is contended that the petitioner got issued a notice through his advocate on 6.2.2002 itself claiming service benefits of the deceased employee and also seeking compassionate appointment. In response to the same, the 1st respondent by letter dated 16.2.2002 informed the petitioner’s counsel that it is necessary to produce Succession and Legal Heir Certificates from a competent Civil Court. Thereafter, O.P.No.3120 of 2004 was filed and the same was decided in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner again made another representation. Thus, it is contended that the petitioner has approached the respondents at the earliest point of time without any delay and therefore the action of the respondents in denying the petitioner the compassionate appointment is arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. The original record has also been called for so as to ascertain the petitioner’s claim that he made an application for compassionate appointment in the year 2002 itself soon after the death of his father. The record revealed that the notice got issued by the petitioner and other family members through their counsel on 6.2.2002 was only for the purpose of settling the service benefits to which the deceased was entitled to including gratuity and insurance. It is stated in the said notice that the rival claimant Smt. Suguna has no right whatsoever and therefore the service benefits should not be released in her favour. Except that there was absolutely no mention about the entitlement of the petitioner for compassionate appointment much less any request was made to that effect. The record shows that no other representation or request has been made by the petitioner till 10.3.2008 for compassionate appointment. Thus it is clear that the claim of the petitioner that he requested for compassionate appointment soon after the death of his father is factually incorrect. The law is well-settled that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread-winner. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief. The fact that the petitioner made such a request after six long years itself shows that the petitioner’s request is not bona fide. At any rate, as per the Scheme formulated by the respondent Company, the petitioner’s request is clearly time-barred. Hence the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment. For the aforesaid reasons, the respondents cannot be found fault with in not considering the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 08.09.2009 gbs