IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 3954 of 2000 Between: 1 Y.S.A.Pydi Raju, (died), unemployee, S/o. Late Sri Y.Satyanarayana, E. 86136, R/o. Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatanam District. 2 Y.Lakshmi kantham, W/o. Late Satyanarayana, E. 86136, R/o. Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam Region, Visakhapatnam 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 to issue an order or direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents herein in not providing employment to the petitioner on Compassionate Grounds under bread winner scheme and rejecting his case vide Proc.No. L1/876(27)/98-RM-VSP, Visakhapatnam, Dt. 12-6-1998 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and as such set aside the same with a consequential direction to the Respondents herein to consider the case of the Petitioner for any suitable post forthwith in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER: In this writ petition, the original petitioner sought direction by way of Mandamus to the respondents to provide employment to him on compassionate grounds under the breadwinner scheme, which is in operation in the respondent-Corporation. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the original petitioner died and second petitioner came on record as the legal representative. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that in view of the death of the original petitioner, the second petitioner is not pressing the directions sought for, but however, as per the scheme, she is entitled for additional monetary beneﬁt. Even the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation submits that as per the scheme in force, the second petitioner is eligible for the additional monetary benefit. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the second petitioner to make a fresh application to the respondent-Corporation seeking additional monetary beneﬁt as per the scheme and, on ﬁling such application, the respondent- Corporation shall consider and pass appropriate orders determining the eligibility and quantum of additional monetary beneﬁt for which she is entitled to and steps shall be taken for payment of the said amount within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of such application. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J September 16, 2008 CVRK