IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12907 of 2000 Between: P.Mangayamma w/o.late Sri P. Adinarayana, R/o. 7-254/17, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari 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, Rajahamundry, East Godavari District. 3 A.P.S.R.T.C Rep by its Depot Manager, Ramachandrapuram East Godavari 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 or any other appropriate writ, order or directions directing the respondents herein to consider petitioner case for appointment in any suitable post on compassionate grounds in the respondent corporation under the administrative control of the respondent 2 & 3 herein and pass such other orders as this Honourable Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 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.12907 of 2000 ORAL ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction by way of Mandamus to the respondents-A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity “the Corporation”) to consider her case for appointment in any suitable post on compassionate grounds. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, while working as Mechanic attached to the Depot Manager, Ramachandrapuram Depot, East Godavari District, the husband of the petitioner died on 22-08-1997. The petitioner made a representation on 17-12-1997 to consider her case for appointment on compassionate grounds. By proceedings, dated 13-07-1998, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that she was not having the requisite qualifications and not eligible to any of the posts of Driver, Conductor and Cleaner. Insofar as the post of Sweeper, it is stated that the said posts are not available in the Corporation. However, the petitioner was advised to avail the privilege of monetary benefit scheme in lieu of employment by duly complying with the formalities. When the petitioner made another representation on 13-03-2000 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, the same was rejected by proceedings, dated 01-04-2000, while referring the earlier proceedings, dated 13-07-1998. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that so far as the post of Sweeper is concerned, no reasons are assigned for rejecting the case of the petitioner. 4. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the Corporation denying the various allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated that the Corporation had imposed ban on direct recruitment and there are no vacancies in the categories of Sweeper/Cleaner. However, it was stated that through the proceedings, dated 13-07-1998, the petitioner was informed to avail the additional monetary benefit in lieu of employment as per the scheme. 5. In view of the policy decision taken by the Corporation, imposing ban on direct recruitment, the dependants of the deceased employees cannot claim employment as a matter of right. This issue is considered by a Division Bench of this Court in a recent judgment in ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. VALLURU VENKATA NARAYANA[1] wherein it is held that no direction can be given contrary to the policy when the policy is a bonafide one. 6. Therefore, in view of the judgment referred to above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 7. However, it is made clear that since the petitioner is entitled for additional monetary benefit, she can make a representation seeking monetary benefit, within a period of six weeks from today, and on such application being made, the respondents shall consider the same with regard to entitlement of the petitioner for additional monetary benefit, as per the applicable circulars, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of two months from the date of such application. 8. Subject to above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 27-11-2008. Msr HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12907 of 2000 27-11-2008 Msr [1] 2008 (3) ALT 5 (D.B.)