IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3478 of 2000 Between: N. Pallam Raju, D.No. 6-1-7, Amalapuram, E.G.District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Musheerabad. Hyderabad. 2 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep by its Regional Manager, Rajahmundry, E.G.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 will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, of any other appropriate Writ or Orders directions directing the 2nd respondent herein forthwith consider the case of the petitioner and appoint him as conductor on compassionate grounds in the respondents corporation, and pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.GOVINDA RAJULU Counsel for the Respondents : C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3478 of 2000 ORAL ORDER : The petitioner, who is the son of the deceased working in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity “the Corporation”), seeks a direction to consider his case for appointment to the post of Conductor on compassionate grounds in the Corporation. 2. The father of the petitioner Sri N.Subbarao Naidu, while working as Blacksmith in the Corporation at Gokavaram Depot in East Godavari District, died on 20-06-1997. Consequent upon his death, the petitioner, who is the second son of the deceased, made a representation to the authorities to appoint him in any suitable post and extend the benefit as per the Circular instructions governing the appointments on compassionate grounds. However, the request of the petitioner was rejected vide proceedings No.E6/684(2)/98-RM/RJY, dated 06-07-1998, issued by the Personnel Officer, office of the Regional Manager, East Godavari Region, Rajahmundry, stating that the petitioner is the second son and the first son of the deceased was working as Conductor and, as such, he is not eligible. 3. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that the brother of the petitioner, who is the first son of the deceased, was appointed as Conductor earlier to the death of his father on his own merits and, therefore, the same cannot be a ground to deprive him the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds. It is also submitted that the first son of the deceased, who was in the service of the Corporation, is not residing along with the petitioner and other family members. 4. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in A.RAVI KUMAR vs. M.D., APSRTC[1]. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Corporation. While denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the Selection Committee has scrutinized the application, dated 02-09- 1997, of the petitioner and called him for the interview. After verification, it was found that the first son of the deceased employee was appointed as Conductor in the Corporation and working at Gokavaram Depot and that as per the scheme, namely “Bread Winner Scheme”, the benefit can be extended if none of the family members of the deceased is in service. Since the first son of the deceased was appointed in the Corporation, the petitioner is not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds under the said scheme. 6. Now, it is well settled with regard to the appointment on compassionate grounds, the right of the applicant has to be examined within the framework of the scheme itself. Whether the other son of the deceased employee was appointed on his own merits or otherwise is irrelevant, so long as it is not disputed that the other person, who is in employment, is a member of the family of the deceased and is in service. 7. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court referred to above, however, in REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC v. M.SAMPOORNAMMA[2] and STATE BANK OF INDIA v. SOMVIR SINGH[3], the Apex Court has categorically held that the claim of the dependent of the employee, who died in harness, is to be examined within the framework of the scheme only and there is no special or additional claim or right for appointment on compassionate grounds. 8. In this case, one of the conditions of the scheme notified as “Bread Winner Scheme” contemplates that the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds can be extended only in cases where none of the family members are in service. Since the brother of the petitioner was already in the service of the Corporation, the judgment in A.RAVI KUMAR’s case (1 supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not render any assistance to him in support of his argument. 9. Further, it is also to be noted that, as submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, the above said scheme is not in operation and they are extending the benefit in terms of money in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds. 10. Therefore, in view of the reason assigned in the order of rejection of the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, which is in conformity with the conditions as notified in the scheme, and also in view of the judgments of the Apex Court, referred to above, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief of appointment on compassionate grounds. 11. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner or any other member of the family of the deceased employee is eligible for any monetary benefit, this order will not preclude them to claim such a benefit. In case, any application is made claiming such monetary benefit, the respondent Corporation is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders as per the applicable Circulars, in this regard. 12. Subject to above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 26-11-2008. Msr HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3478 of 2000 26-11-2008 Msr [1] 2000 (4) ALT 506 [2] (1999) SCC (L&S) 1162 [3] (2007) 4 SCC 778