IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1426 OF 2009 Dt.10.12.2009 Between: P. Ramesh … Appellant And The Divisional Engineer Electrical (OP) APCPDCL, Charminar, Hyderabad and another … Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri N. Ashok Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: Sri P. Balarami Reddy (Standing Counsel for APCPDCL) THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1426 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) The appellant filed this appeal feeling aggrieved by order dt.8.9.2009 in Writ Petition No.4015 of 2009, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. The father of the appellant died in harness while he was in employment with the respondents, on 07.11.2002. It is not in dispute that for the first time, the appellant approached the respondents with a request for providing compassionate appointment on 10.03.2008. His request having been rejected by the respondents, the appellant filed the Writ Petition, which, as stated above, was dismissed by the impugned order. At the hearing, Sri N. Ashok Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that as there was a dispute regarding the legal heirs between the appellant and his mother on one side and a person by name, Sugunamma, on the other, the appellant could not approach the respondents before resolution of the said dispute. It is not in dispute that under the policy of the A.P. Central Power Distribution Corporation Limited (APPDCL), as reflected in B.P. Ms. No.119, dt.10.2.1982 and B.P. Rt. No.36, dt.08.05.1996, a person seeking compassionate appointment has to apply within one year from the date of the death of the employee and if he was not eligible by that time, such an application should be filed not later than two years from the date of the death. The learned Single Judge summoned the record and perused the letter dt.6.2.2002 addressed by the appellant along with his other family members and held that the said letter was confined only to the claim for payment of pensionary and other benefits payable upon the death of father of the appellant and that no request was made for providing compassionate appointment. We cannot accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that a rival claim made by another person for receiving pensionary and other benefits could have precluded the appellant from approaching the respondents with a request for providing him compassionate appointment. The Apex Court in a catena of decisions has held that the purpose of providing compassionate appointment is to enable the family, who lost the bread winner, to tide over the crisis arise on account of sudden death of the employee and that belated applications for such appointments cannot be allowed. As the appellant failed to offer any plausible explanation for not making the claim for compassionate appointment within the period prescribed by the respondents, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition. We, therefore, do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Appeal, W.A.M.P. No.2959 of 2009, filed by the appellant-petitioner for interim relief, is dismissed. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10.12.2009 bnr