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 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20015 of 2000 Between: Zaheer Ahmed S/o Late Maqbool Ahmed, R/o Nirmal, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Adilabad District. .....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 a Writ or order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of mandamus- (i) declaring the Impugned proceeding No.E1/255(12)/98-RM:ADB dt. 24-4-1998, issued by the second respondent as illegal & arbitrary; (ii) direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as cleaner or in any other suitable post. (iii) pass any 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.K.VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20015 of 2000 ORDER : This writ petition is ﬁled questioning the order dated 24th April 1998, passed by the 2nd respondent, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, in view of the death of his father while in service. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Late father of the petitioner, by name Maqbool Ahmed, was working as a Driver in Nirmal Depot of Adilabad District. He died on 22nd November 1981 while in service. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner was aged abut 1 ½ years at the time of the death of his father, and after attaining the age of majority, he has made an application, requesting the respondents to appoint him as a Cleaner, on compassionate ground. But however, through the order dated 24th April 1998, his case was rejected, stating that asper the scheme, the applications of the sons of the deceased employees were considered only if such applications are ﬁled within three years from the date of death of the employee. 3. Though it is the case of the petitioner that as he was minor at the time of the death of his father who was employed in the Corporation, but in the absence of any scheme, allowing the minor children of the deceased employees to make an application after attaining the age of majority, they are not entitled for any appointment on compassionate ground. It is now well settled that for the appointment on compassionate grounds, the right of any applicant has to be considered only within the framework of the scheme notiﬁed by the organization, and not beyond that. Moreover, the object of the scheme is to rescue the members of the bereaved family immediately after the death of the employee, if he dies in harness. The scheme is not intended as a measure of alternative appointment after number of years of death of the employee. 4. In that view of the matter, I do not ﬁnd any illegality in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. However, this will not preclude either the petitioner or his mother from claiming any monetary beneﬁt, if any scheme exists for payment of such money to the kith and kin of the deceased. 5. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 28th August 2008 ajr To 1 The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Adilabad District.