IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22717 of 2000 Between: 1 P.Srinivasa Rao S/o. Late P.Rambabu R/o.14-3-12A, Addepallivari Veedhi, Vizianagaram. 2 Smt. P.Varalaxmi W/o. Late P.Rambabu R/o.14-3-12A, Addepallivari Veedhi, Vizianagaram. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vizianagaram. 3 The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Vizianagaram. .....RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ, Order or Direction (s0 essentially in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents herein to appoint the Petitioner No.1 herein in suitable post i.e., Cleaner/Conductor in the Respondent Corporation on compassionate grounds under the Bread Winner Scheme by holding the action of the Respondents herein in rejecting the claims of the Petitioners herein as illegal, arbitrary, bad, discriminatory, irrational, illogical and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioners :MR.THOOMSRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents : MR.C.APPAIAH SARMA The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 22717 of 2000 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioners seek directions by way of Mandamus, directing the respondents to appoint the 1st petitioner in a suitable post, namely, Cleaner/Conductor in the respondent/Corporation, on compassionate grounds. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the father of the 1st petitioner was in the service of the respondent- Corporation and he died in harness while in service, on 15.03.1990. It is their case that immediately after the death of the deceased, who was the father of the 1st petitioner and the husband of the 2nd petitioner, a representation was submitted on 23rd April 1990, for compassionate appointment, but however, their claim was not considered. As such, by making further representation on 30th of April 2000, they came up with this writ petition. 3. In the counter aﬃdavit, it is stated that the father of the 1st petitioner was died on 15.03.1990 in a train accident and the age of the 1st petitioner was only 9 years at that point of time. While denying the receipt of representation dated 23rd April 1990, it is submitted that as much as only three years period is stipulated in the scheme for compassionate appointments, no claim can be entertained at this point of time. 4. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that immediately after the death of the deceased, a representation was made for compassionate appointment, but inspite of the same, no orders are passed for appointment of petitioners. Though making of such representation is speciﬁcally denied in the counter aﬃdavit, the same is not controverted by the petitioners, by ﬁling any reply aﬃdavit. In any event, during the course of arguments, it is submitted by learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that in view of the ban orders, no appointments are being made on compassionate grounds. 6. It is now fairly well settled that to seek appointment on compassionate grounds, the rights of claimants will have to be examined with reference to the scheme which is in force. When the scheme prescribes for making an application within a period of three years, the petitioners cannot claim any appointment after this long time. Though a representation was alleged to have been made by the petitioners on 23rd April 1990, the same is denied in the counter, but however, with reference to the application of petitioners, dated 30th April 2000, rejection orders are passed on 06.05.2000 in Proceedings No.P3/684(2)/2000/RM/VZM. Even by the date of 2nd representation i.e. by 30th of April 2000, nearly ten years have passed by, and if any direction is given for compassionate appointment at this stage, it would run contrary to the object of the very scheme itself. The object of the scheme of appointment on compassionate ground is to rescue the members of the bereaved family due to the sudden demise of an employee during the course of employment. In any case, when it is submitted that the representation is a belated one, no direction can be given for appointment of 1st petitioner. 7. In this regard, reference can be made to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India v. Somvir Singh [1], wherein, the Apex Court, while considering the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds, has held that dependant has no special or additional claim or right to seek appointment on compassionate grounds, other than the rights conferred in the scheme itself. Further, in the case of Regional Manager, APSRTC v. M.Sampoornamma[2], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if a bonaﬁde policy decision is taken by the employer for not extending the employment, no direction can be granted for making appointments contrary to the said policy, by entertaining the application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. In that view of the matter, I do not ﬁnd any merit in this writ petition for granting the directions as prayed for. 9. However, it is also submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that the petitioners are entitled for additional monetary beneﬁt in lieu of employment. Even the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents is not denying the same. If the petitioners are eligible for additional monetary beneﬁt, I permit them to make an application for the same within a period of four weeks from today. If such an application is ﬁled, the respondents shall take appropriate decision in the matter and pay additional monetary beneﬁts as per the scheme, which is applicable in this regard. 10. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 6th November 2008 ajr [1] (2007) 4 SCC 778 [2] 1999 SCC (L&S) 1162