IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17246 of 2008 Between: B.Srinivas S/o.Late Thrimurthy R/o.8-14-3/1,Nethaji Street China Waltair,Visakhapatnam ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The General Manager,STate Bank of India., Bank STreet Koti,Hyderabad 2 The Assistant General Manger,State Bank of India Zonal Office,Region-I,Visakhapatnam 3 The Branch Manager,State Bank of India., Andhra University Engineering college Campus Branch,Visakhapatnam .....RESPONDENTS 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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents not giving Compassionate appointment to the petitioner in spite of his application dated 2.6.2004 is being pending and recommended by 3rd respondent along with the Undertaking Agreement (Annexure-B) before the 3rd respondent which is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to enable the petitioner for compassionate appointment in any suitable post under the control of the 3rd respondent where the petitioner father was died while in service. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KARRI SURYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent : . The Court made the following : ORDER: The father of the petitioner is said to have died on 15.10.2003, while in service of the State Bank of India. Soon thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application for providing appointment, on compassionate grounds. It is stated that the Branch Manager, the third respondent herein, had made a favourable recommendation for extension of the beneﬁt, way back in 02.06.2004. The grievance of the petitioner is that no action has been taken thereon by the second respondent. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The ﬁrst respondent had adopted a scheme, for providing employment, on compassionate grounds to the dependents of the employees, who died, while in service, leaving the family in a distressed condition. In case the petitioner ﬁts into the parameters of the scheme, he deserves to be extended the beneﬁt. On the other hand, if the petitioner had incurred any disqualiﬁcation, the same needs to be informed to him. The matter cannot be kept pending for years together. The very purpose of introducing the scheme would be defeated, on account of such undue delay. The Writ Petition is disposed of, directing respondents 1 and 2 to take necessary action, on the application, submitted by the petitioner, for providing appointment, on compassionate grounds, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is directed that in case the respondents need any further information from the petitioner, they shall address necessary letter, in this regard. There shall be no order as to costs ____________________ Dt.08.08.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ