THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8216 of 2010 ORDER: The husband of the petitioner was engaged as a contract Labour by the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short ‘the Board’) up to 1997. The Board framed schemes for absorption of contract labour engaged in prohibited categories. He made an effort to get absorbed in pursuance of an order issued by this Court. He was issued a call letter on 01.06.1998. On a consideration, the competent authority rejected his case on 14.07.2000. Aggrieved thereby, the husband of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons filed W.P.No.6487 of 2003. The writ petition was disposed of on 04.08.2004 taking on record the fact that the husband of the petitioner herein preferred an appeal on 23.03.2004 before the Board. The husband of the petitioner died on 19.08.2006. She made an application to the respondents, who are the successors of the Board, to appoint her on compassionate grounds. Her grievance is that the respondents have not passed any orders so far. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner places reliance upon the judgment, dated 01.12.1999, rendered by this Court in W.A.No.657 of 1999. That was a case where the spouses of the deceased casual labourers were denied the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds on the ground that they are not the dependants of regular employees. The deceased casual labourers in those cases were not considered for regularisation at all in terms of relevant Board proceedings. Therefore, the Division Bench directed that the Board shall process the cases of the deceased employees on notional basis, and if it emerges that they were entitled to be regularised, the cases of the petitioners therein shall be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. In the instant case, the facts are substantially different. The husband of the petitioner was alive till 2006. He was called for interview on 01.06.1998 under the scheme and his case was rejected on 14.07.2000. Representation made by him to the authority concerned was rejected on 18.11.2003. An appeal was preferred by him before the Board on 23.03.2004 along with 15 other candidates. It is not known as to whether any relief was granted by the appellate authority. Had the authority passed an order in favour of the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner would have been entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment. On the other hand, if the appeal is rejected, the application of the petitioner also deserves to be rejected. In the absence of definite information, this Court cannot grant relief. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY 28th September 2010 dr