HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No. 12371 of 1999 DATE: 06-02-2008 Between: K. Peeramma ……………… Petitioner and 1. The Personal Officer, Office of the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Cuddapah and another. ………….. Respondents HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No. 12371 of 1999 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying this Court to consider her case for compassionate appointment to any suitable post on account of her husband, who worked as Helper in the respondents- corporation, dying in harness. 2. The petitioner was the wife of the then Helper by name K. Babbulu. The said employee died on 07-07-1998. The petitioner is the only legal heir of the deceased. As per the circulars issued by the respondents-corporation, she is entitled for compassionate appointment on account of the death of her husband in harness leaving behind her with three minor children. There is no other earning member in the family. She made a representation on 01-08- 1998 to the first respondent requesting to consider her case for compassionate appointment. The first respondent issued proceedings on 19-08-1998 rejecting her representation on the ground that there is a ban on the recruitment of Attenders/Sweepers and it is not possible to provide job in the APSRTC and directed her to take additional monetary benefit in lieu of employment in APSRTC. 3. The petitioner further submitted that for the post of Cleaners and Helpers, there is no ban and she is ready to work in any post entrusted by the Corporation, therefore, she challenged the impugned proceedings of the APSRTC on the ground of illegality and arbitrariness and sought to issue necessary directions to the respondents for her appointment. 4. The respondents filed a counter affidavit contending that there is a directive from the Chief Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad through the letter, dated 09-10-1998 to the effect that no woman candidate shall be considered for appointment to the post of Cleaner. Hence, the case of the petitioner could not be considered for the post of Cleaner. Regarding the post of Helper, it is a promotional post, therefore, her case cannot be considered. The respondents further contended that in the light of Circular No.2/98, there is a ban for direct recruitment to all the posts except to the posts of Drivers and Conductors, which are productive in nature. The instructions issued by APSRTC in Circular No.64/98, dated 13-07-1988 has come up for scrutiny before the Supreme Court recently in Civil Appeal No.6303 of 1998 arising out of SLP(c) No.3739 of 1998 filed by the Corporation against the orders of the High Court in W.A.No.1436 of 1997 and also Civil Appeal No.8948 of 1997 against the orders of the High Court in W.P.No.20842 of 1994. The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the said Circular and further clarified that if there are no vacant posts for which the children/spouse of the deceased employee are entitled as per the eligibility criteria, additional monetary benefit may be paid in lieu of employment. The petitioner is at liberty to avail the benefits of additional monetary benefit if she so chooses, otherwise she has to wait for her turn to get employment in the organization till the ban is lifted in view of the policy decision taken by the Government. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents drew the attention of this Court to a decision of this Court reported in A.P. STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, HYDERABAD v. K. SARASWATHI DEVI [1], wherein a Division bench of this Court held as follows: “4. We had an occasion to consider the same question in Writ Appeal No.1706 of 2003, vide judgment dated 29th October, 2003, and took the view that for all practical purposes, G.O.Ms.No.36, Public Enterprises (III) Department, dated 5-9-2001, completely revises G.O.Ms.No.59, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 05-02-1993. In such view of the matter, there is no scope for consideration of any cases for appointment on compassionate grounds of those employees who died in harness. But, such of those dependents are undoubtedly entitled for payment of ex-gratia in terms of the revised policy of the State Government. (5) CLAUSE (6) of G.O.Ms.No.36, Public Enterprises (III) Department, dated 5-9-2001 reads as follows: “these orders shall come into force with immediate effect. Government also direct that the earlier cases shall not be entertained under any circumstances”, (emphasis added) (6) IT is thus clear that the present policy of the Government, as is evident from G.O.Ms.No.36, Public Enterprises (III) Department, dated 5-9-2001, not only completely prohibits making appointments on compassionate grounds but also directs all State Level Public Enterprises not to consider even the earlier cases pending before them. It is thus clear that for all practical purposes, G.O.Ms.No.36, Public Enterprises (III) Department, dated 5-9-2001, replaces the earlier policy of the Government contained in G.O.Ms.No.59, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 5-2-1993. (7) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we find it difficult to sustain the order passed by the learned single Judgment and the order is accordingly set aside. Writ appeals are allowed and writ petition shall stand dismissed.” 6. By making the above observations, the Division Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge directing the Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment afresh on compassionate grounds without reference to G.O.Ms.No.36, Public Enterprises (III) Department, dated 5-9-2001 on the ground that as on the date of application filed by her seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, the G.O. was not in existence. But the Division Bench, while setting aside the order passed by the learned single Judge, dismissed the writ petition. 7. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court regarding the validity of the Circular issued by the respondents-corporation and G.O.Ms.No.36, Public Enterprises (III) Department, no direction can be given to the APSRTC to consider the representation of the petitioner for compassionate appointment at this stage. A learned single Judge of this Court, while disposing of W.P.No.26488 of 2006 and Batch, gave a direction to the Principal Secretary, Transport, Roads and Buildings Department, Government of A.P., Hyderabad to reconsider the whole issue and take appropriate decision in consultation with APSRTC with regard to the permitting of the respondent-corporation to appoint/absorb the children/spouses of the employees died in harness in any existing or future suitable vacancies as per their eligibility, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and communicate the same to the respondents-corporation as well as the petitioner in that writ petition. 8. In the light of the above circumstances, if the Government reconsiders its policy and revises the scheme of compassionate appointment, the case of the petitioner shall also be considered by the respondents-corporation for compassionate appointment in a suitable post to which she is eligible. 9. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed for the present. No order as to costs. ___________________ Dr. G. YETHIRAJULU, J Date:06-02-2008 YCR [1] 2004 (1) ALD 48