IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURALBE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.C. No.165 of 2008 Between: S.V.S.Nageswara Rao … Petitioner And Sri Dinesh Reddy, V.C. & M.D., A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.C. No.165 of 2008 ORDER: This contempt case has been filed seeking to punish the respondents for willful disobedience of the order dated 13.09.2007 passed in W.P.M.P. No.25089 of 2007 in W.P. No.19503 of 2007. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that his father was an employee of the respondents’ Corporation and he died while in service. Seeking direction to the respondents to consider his claim of appointment on compassionate ground, he filed W.P. No.19503 of 2007. Along with the said writ petition, he also filed W.P.M.P. No.25089 of 2007 seeking direction to the respondents to appoint him in the post of Conductor/Mechanic or any other suitable post, pending the writ petition. This Court on 13.09.2007 in W.P.M.P. No.25089 of 2007 passed interim direction directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to any suitable post on compassionate grounds, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of the order. As he was not provided with any employment in the Corporation, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, he filed the present contempt case. On behalf of the respondents’ Corporation, counter affidavit has been filed based on which, the learned standing counsel submitted that the petitioner was informed vide Proceedings dated 15.10.2007 that the Corporation is not in a position to provide employment to the dependants of the employees who died in harness under the bread winner scheme as there is a ban imposed by the Government vide G.O.Ms. No.36, dated 05.06.2001 and he can claim additional monetary benefit in lieu of employment on compassionate ground. It is also submitted that the Corporation had addressed many letters to the Government with a request to lift the ban but the Government had rejected the request of the Corporation. Therefore, the Corporation is not in a position to provide any employment on compassionate ground under the bread winner scheme. It is further submitted that in similar circumstances in Writ Appeal No.110 of 2008 the Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeal holding that the Corporation cannot be compelled to provide compassionate appointments and no such directions can be given in view of the ban and non existence of the scheme. Therefore, in view of these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to additional monetary benefit in lieu of compassionate appointment as per the Circular No.17 of 2007, dated 12.04.2007, to provide alternative monetary benefit in view of ban on compassionate appointments. Eventually, it is submitted that incompliance with the order dated 13.09.2007 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P. No.25089 of 2007, they have issued proceedings dated 15.10.2007 stating that the petitioner can opt for additional monetary benefit in lieu of employment on compassionate ground. Therefore, the respondents did not commit any contempt of Court and this contempt case is liable to be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record. It is evident that the Corporation had correspondence with the Government with regard to lifting of ban but the Government did not lift the ban. Further, it is to be seen that the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.110 of 2008 categorically held that the dependants of a deceased employee have no legal right to be appointed in service if there is no policy with regard to providing employment. As per G.O.Ms. No.36, dated 05.09.2001, the Government had issued instructions for dispensing with any kind of compassionate appointments under bread winner scheme in all state level enterprises and as per the said G.O. the dependants of the deceased employees are entitled to claim additional monetary benefit. From a close consideration of the contempt case, it is not the case of the petitioner that the respondents have not complied with the order passed by this Court but the respondents did not pass any positive orders providing employment to the petitioner. In fact, the respondents have issued proceedings dated 15.10.2007 incompliance with the order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P. No.19503 of 2007. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents have willfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P. No.19503 of 2007. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel, this contempt case is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the recent past the Corporation made appointments of the dependants of the deceased employees but the claim of the petitioner has not been considered. In such an event, it is left open for the petitioner to question the impugned proceedings dated 15.10.2007, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 06.06.2011 LSK