HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.11348 of 2011 Date: April 21, 2011 Between: G.Penta Reddy … Petitioner And Rashtriya ISPAT, Nigam Limited and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.11348 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not considering the application, dated 21.03.2011, made by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment consequent to the death of his father, who died during employment as service Charge Man, Construction Service Zone, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct respondent No.2 to pass appropriate orders on the application made by the petitioner. 2. Father of the petitioner worked as Service Charge Man, Construction Service Zone, bearing employee No.100751 at Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, and while he was in service he expired on 19.08.2010 at Seven Hills Hospital, Visakhapatnam leaving behind himself, his mother and two daughters as his legal representatives. Respondent No.2 vide office order, dated 27.09.2010, passed an order striking off the name of the petitioner’s father from the rolls of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant as he demised on 19.08.2010 and directed the mother of the petitioner on 06.11.2010 to deposit an amount of Rs.19,65,952/- towards the amount equivalent to notional provident fund and gratuity of his father to become member of employees’ family benefit scheme of RINL to avail the benefit of monthly payment equivalent to revised basic pay plus DA last drawn by his father. Accordingly, mother of the petitioner obtained D.D. on 08.11.2010 in favour of RINLVSP for a sum of Rs.19,65,952/- and submitted the same to the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, as there is no employment provided to the petitioner, he made a representation in the month of November, 2010 to respondent No.2 to provide employment to him on compassionate grounds in lieu of death of his father while he was in service. But respondent No.2 has not passed any order nor given any reply. Therefore, the petitioner again made an application on 21.03.2011 to respondent Nos.1 and 2 requesting to provide an employment to him on compassionate grounds. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule that appointment to public service should be on merits and through selection process. In such cases, the appointment is given to a member of the family of the deceased employee by accommodating him in a suitable vacancy. The object is to give assistance or help to the family, which has been suddenly collapsed into penury due to the untimely death of its sole bread winner. 4. On instructions, learned counsel for the respondents stated that there is no scheme available with the respondents to provide compassionate appointments consequent upon the death of the deceased person due to the harness. When there is no such scheme, the question of directing the respondents to give compassionate appointment to the petitioners contrary to the rules or scheme does not arise. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents also brought to the notice of this Court that as per the existing scheme, the legal representatives of the deceased person are entitled to the family benefit scheme, which has been granted to the mother of the petitioner. Therefore, the question of granting double benefit to the petitioner in respect of same cause of action does not arise. 6. Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C. BHANU, J April 21, 2011. LMV