THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24908 of 2011 ORDER: The father of the petitioner was employed as Lineman in the A.P. Northern Power Distribution Company Limited. He died on 10.08.2002 while in service and two years thereafter, his mother also died. At that time, the petitioner was a minor and his maternal aunt was appointed as a guardian. The petitioner attained the age of majority in the recent past. The Chief General Manager, respondent No.2 herein, issued proceedings, dated 09.12.2010, sanctioning the family pension to the petitioner and his brothers. A claim was made by the petitioner with a prayer to provide employment on compassionate grounds. Respondent No.2 expressed the view through the said proceedings that it would not be possible to consider his case, since it is barred under the scheme framed in Memo, dated 21.02.1991. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is no doubt true that the petitioner was a minor when his father and mother died in a fire accident. It is also true that there existed a scheme for providing employment to the dependants of the deceased employees at that time and even now. However, according to the scheme, the application to avail the benefit must be made within one year from the date of death of the employee. In B.P.Ms.No.119, dated 10.02.1982, it is mentioned that the benefit must be availed within one year from the date of death of the employee and no claim shall be entertained beyond that date. Assuming that it was impossible for the petitioner to claim the benefit since he was a minor, the respondents can be compelled to entertain the claim within a reasonable period. For instance, the State Bank of India has provided a gap of six years even where the dependant of the deceased employee was a minor. By the time the petitioner made the claim, eight years have elapsed. There may have been a justification for this, since he became major only at that point of time. However, the scheme cannot be treated as a source of succession, conferring the right upon the dependant to claim the appointment on compassionate grounds, as a vested right. The respondents have already extended the financial benefit in accordance with law. This Court does not find any basis to grant any relief to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:12.09.2011 kdl