IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 804 of 2001 Between: 1. B.V.Bhagyalakshmi W/o Late Balakrishna R/o 12-10-668, Indranagar No.1, Warasiguda, Secunderabad. 2. B.Shamsunder W/o Late Balakrishna R/o 12-10-668, Indranagar No.1, Warasiguda, Secunderabad. .....PETITIONERS AND The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep by its works Manger (ZWS-HZ), Uppal, Hyd. .....RESPONDENT 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, particualrly in the nature of awrit of mandamus by declaring the action o the respondents in not appionting the petitioners in asuitable post as illegal & arbitrary and consequently direct the responent to appiont either the P1 & P2 in asuitable post under the compassionate quota Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.S.RAYALU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled seeking to declare the action of the respondent, by way of Writ of Mandamus, in not appointing either of the petitioners in a suitable post as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent to appoint either the 1st petitioner or the 2nd petitioner in a suitable post under the compassionate quota. Brief facts of the case of the petitioners are that one Balakrishna, deceased, husband and father of the petitioners 1 and 2, respectively, was a Mechanic–II of a Zonal Work shop, Uppal, expired while in service on 28-07-1993. As the said Balakrishna died, his wife 1st petitioner made an application to the respondent Corporation requesting to provide her employment in any of the suitable post on compassionate grounds. As there was no response from the respondent, she ﬁled W.P. No.29424 of 1995 and that was disposed of by this Court on 16-10-1997 directing the respondent therein to consider the case of the petitioner within two months. On making a fresh representation on 23-02-1998 by the 1st petitioner, the respondent passed an order dated 22-04-1998 rejecting her case for appointment on the ground that she has no educational qualiﬁcation for the post of Conductor/Driver and intimated that there is complete ban on recruitment of Sweepers/Attenders in terms of Circular dated 23-12-1993 and she was advised to claim additional monetary beneﬁts, in lieu of employment, but the same was rejected by her. She further made another representation to the respondent in the month of June, 2000 to appoint her son under compassionate appointment as he is eligible for Conductor post and the respondent rejected the same vide proceeding dated 22-07-2000 stating that it is not possible at this length of time, after a lapse of 7 years, to appoint the 2nd petitioner as Conductor. In view of the above position, the petitioners have come up with the instant writ petition with the aforesaid prayer. The respondent ﬁled counter wherein did not dispute the factual position to the extent of appointment of the deceased and his death while in service. Thereafter making several representations by the petitioners and on consideration, taking into consideration the circulars issued by the Corporation from time to time, rejected the request of the petitioners and they were advised to claim additional monetary benefit. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are agreed to claim additional monetary benefits in lieu of employment in the Corporation for the death of the deceased, who died while in service. He also requested this Court to direct the respondent Corporation to settle the monetary benefits as expeditiously as possible. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and taking into consideration the letter dated 22-07-2000 issued by the Corporation informing the petitioners to claim additional monetary beneﬁt in lieu of employment without further loss of time, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: The respondent Corporation is directed to consider the case of the petitioners, in accordance with law, for grant of additional monetary beneﬁts as per their entitlement, in lieu of employment, and to pay the amount to the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 19-09-2008 Note: Issue C.C. by 23-09-2008 B/o. LSK