IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14104 of 2000 Between: B.Ramakanth S/o.(Late) B.Yadagiri R/o.128 C.S.R.Nagar, Colony, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Chairman and Manging Director, A.P. TRANSCO, Vidyuth Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2 Superintending Engineer (Oper) A.P. TRANSCO, Karimnagar Circle, Karimnagar 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 may be pleased to issue an order, direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds even though the petitioner is eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds as per B.P.Ms.No.119 dated 10-2-1982 and Govt. Memo DP/DM.G.I/983/89 dt.21-2- 1991 as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and against Art.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and issue consequential directions, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner in any suitable post and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.S.V.INDIRA Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14104 of 2000 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks declaration by way of Mandamus in not considering the case of the petitioner for appointment in A.P.TRANSCO on compassionate grounds as illegal and arbitrary. When the matter is taken up for hearing, though no counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents, Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, placed a copy of the letter, dated 18-04-2002, issued in Lr.No.CE/HRD/DS/AS(IR)/335-H1/2001, by which, the claim of the petitioner is examined and rejected by recording reasons. Yet another proceeding is also produced, wherein the wife of the deceased was extended the benefit of family pension under alternative scheme vide Memo.No.SE.OP.KNR.SAO.JAO.Pen.D.No.740/08, dated 11-12-2008. It is also represented that when the claim of the petitioner was rejected by letter, dated 18-04-2002, the petitioner also filed another writ petition i.e., W.P.No.11542 of 2002 before this Court and the same is pending. In view of the subsequent order, dated 18-04-2002, and further granting family pension under alternative scheme to the wife of the deceased vide Memo, dated 11-12-2008, I am of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 18-02-2009 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ESWAR}