IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19488 of 2000 Between: KHAJA MIYA S/o. Late Khaja Moinuddin, R/o. 1-3-111-6/3, Rajendranagar, Mahabubnagar-509 001. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Represented by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad-20. 2 A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Represented by its Regional Manager, Mahabubnagar. .....RESPONDENTS 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 call for the records from the 2nd Respondent and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the order passed by the 2nd Respondent in proceedings No. LCI/876(51)/98-RM:MBNR dated 20-12-1999 in refusing to provide a compassionate appointment to the petitioner under the Bread Winners Scheme to the post of Cleaner as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and grant all consequent benefits and pass such other orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19488 OF 2000 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled questioning the order, dated 20.12.1999, passed in proceedings No.LCI/876(51)/98- RM:MBNR, by the 2nd respondent- Regional Manager, Mahabubnagar, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Cleaner on compassionate grounds under Bread Winner Scheme. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner, by name Khaja Moinuddin, who was working as Driver in the respondent Corporation, died on 10.11.1976. When the case of the petitioner was not considered for appointment on compassionate grounds in view of the death of his father, he has ﬁled W.P.No.19251 of 1998 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 03.09.1999, directing the Regional Manager, Mahabubnagar, 2nd respondent herein, to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Cleaner on compassionate grounds. Pursuant to the said order, the 2nd respondent has considered the case of the petitioner and passed the impugned order, dated 20.12.1999, rejecting his claim, on the ground that the other two sons of late Khaja Moinuddin i.e. the brothers of the petitioner, namely K. Nayeemuddin and K. Khader Moinuddin, were already in service of the respondent Corporation and, as such, the petitioner is not eligible for appointment to the post of Cleaner on compassionate grounds under Bread Winner Scheme, as per the eligibility criteria notiﬁed in the said Scheme. Hence, this writ petition. 3. It is submitted by Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the brothers of the petitioner, by name K. Nayeemuddin and K. Khader Moinuddin, are in service of the Corporation, having been appointed in regular selection, and, therefore, on that ground, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the beneﬁt of appointment on compassionate grounds. It is further submitted that the said two brothers of the petitioner are living separately and they have neglected to maintain the petitioner and their mother. 4. It is now well settled that appointments on compassionate grounds are to be considered only within the framework of the scheme available. In the case on hand, the respondents have notiﬁed the eligibility criteria for providing appointment on compassionate grounds under the Bread Winner Scheme, and the said eligibility criteria, as recorded in the impugned order, is as follows: a) No additional monetary beneﬁt is paid to the spouse/nominee of the deceased employees in lieu of employment, b) None of the other children are employed in APSRTC. c) None of other children are selected to Basic Training School and undergoing apprenticeship in R.T.C. d) The application requesting for employment in A.P.S.R.T.C. under Bread Winner Scheme should be submitted within three years from the date of death of the employee. 5. From the above, it is clear that, for claiming the beneﬁt of appointment on compassionate grounds under the Bread Winner Scheme, none of the other children of the deceased should be employed in the Corporation. Whether the brothers of the petitioner were appointed on their merit in the regular selections or on compassionate grounds is irrelevant to decide the issue in question and their working in the Corporation itself is a disqualiﬁcation for the petitioner to seek employment in the Corporation. In that view of the matter, I do not ﬁnd any illegality in the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent, rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Further, the very object of the scheme is to rescue the bereaved members of the family of an employee who died in harness. As much as the other children of the petitioner’s father are already employed, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is in consonance with the Scheme. Hence, I do not ﬁnd any illegality in the impugned order, which warrants interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY 28th August, 2008 IBL