THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.90 of 2004 ORDER: The father and mother of the petitioner herein were employed as sub-staff in the Andhra Bank. In addition to the petitioner, the parents had another son and a daughter. The father of the petitioner by name Rajaiah, died while in service. The brother of the petitioner, by name Kumara Swamy, filed an application for providing appointment on compassionate grounds, in terms of a scheme. His case was considered and he was appointed on compassionate grounds. He is now continuing in service. The mother of the petitioner, i.e. Lakshmamma, died, on 10.03.2002. This time, it is the turn of the petitioner to have made an application to provide compassionate appointment. The respondents refused to accede to the request of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. The petitioner contends that the grounds pleaded by the respondents for denying the facility are contrary to law. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit, opposing the writ petition. According to them, the petitioner is not only over-aged, but also does not fit into the scheme. It is stated that the family is already taken care of by providing employment on compassionate ground to the brother of the petitioner and the facility cannot be claimed as of right or as a matter of succession. Heard Sri K.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.L.Narasimha , learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. A facility, which was evolved, to enable the family of an employee, who died, to overcome the difficulty, on account of sudden death; has solely snow balled into a semblance of estate or a matter of succession. In several cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court explained the purport of the scheme and sounded a note of caution that it cannot be treated as a matter of succession. The ultimate object is only to ensure that the family does not face financial difficulty. If the death-cum-retirement benefits are themselves substantial, the appointment under this scheme cannot be claimed as of right. This case presents a peculiar situation. Both the parents of the petitioner were employees and on account of the death of the father of the petitioner, while in service, his brother was provided the employment. Thereby, the object underlying the scheme was translated into reality vis-à-vis the family of the petitioner. It may be rather unfortunate that the mother of the petitioner also died, while in service. That, however, cannot be a ground for the petitioner to claim compassionate appointment, ignoring the fact that his brother is already in service. If the request of the petitioner is to be acceded to, it amounts to creating an estate in favour of the family vis-à-vis the bank, and that was never the object of the scheme. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.11.11.2010. GJ