IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19812 of 1999 Between: K.Eshwaramma, W/o. Late.Gayaneswar, R/o. 6-7-187, Subhasnagar, Nizamabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.State Transport Corpn; Rep by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The A.P.State Road transport Corpn; Rep By Its Regional Manager, Nizamabad Region, Nizamabad. 3 The Divisional Manager, (now called as Dy.Chief Traffic Manager) A.P.S.R.T.C., Nazamabad. .....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 appropriate Writ or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent in rejecting the petitioner's case for conﬁrmation/ regularisation of her service w.e.f. 1-8-1983 vide impugned proceedings No. E3/225(1)/98 RM.No.NZB dt. 31-8-1998 and 17.9.1997 Procd.No. E1/172(2)/96- RM;NZB as arbitrary, unjust, in violation of Articles-14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent's Corporation to regularise my service w.e.f 1-8-1983 alongwith its consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play and grant such other order or orders as may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondents : SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19812 of 1999 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks direction by way of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents in not extending the beneﬁt of regularization of his service with effect from 01.08.1983 as illegal. 2. The husband of the petitioner was in the service of the respondent-Corporation and he died on 08.03.1981. Thereafter, the petitioner has made a representation to consider her candidature for appointment on compassionate grounds. Though it is the case of the petitioner that her services were accepted as Sweeper with eﬀect from 01.08.1983 by extending the beneﬁt of compassionate appointment, but the fact remains that there was no order of compassionate appointment. While the petitioner was continuing her service as Sweeper on consolidated pay, the selection committee has considered her candidature and appointed her as a Cleaner, vide proceedings dated 17.03.1990, and that thereafter, her post was re-categorized as Attender, vide proceedings dated 17.03.1992. 3. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that asmuch as she was given the beneﬁt of appointment on compassionate grounds from 1st August 1983, she is entitled for regularization of her service with eﬀect from the said date i.e. 01.08.1983. Though it is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed on compassionate grounds, but there is nothing on record to substantiate her claim that her appointment was as a measure of incentive under the compassionate appointment scheme. 4. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the respondents, it is clearly stated that the petitioner was not appointed on compassionate grounds, but was only appointed temporarily on consolidated pay. In the absence of any material, showing that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds, it cannot be construed as an appointment on compassionate grounds, so as to issue Mandamus to regularize her service with effect from 01.08.1983. 5. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 27th August 2008 ajr To 1 The Managing Director, A.P.State Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.State Road transport Corporation, Nizamabad Region, Nizamabad. 3 The Divisional Manager, (now called as Dy.Chief Traffic Manager) A.P.S.R.T.C., Nazamabad.