IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 20230 of 2000 Between: Sri kanchipati srinu, S/o. late Kanchipati Kanakaraju, R/o. Gollavillivanipalem, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, A.P., ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep by its Vice-Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, A.P., 2 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep by its Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Simhachalam Depot, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District, A.P., .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropriate Writ or Order or Direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings of the 3rd respondent herein issued in A.PS.R.T.C. No.M2/756(9)194-SML, dt. 18.4.2000 as unjust and illegal and direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner as compassionate grounds to any of the post for which Iam eligible after calling for the records and to pass such other orders that this Honourable Court may deem just to pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner questioned the proceedings No.M2/756(9) 194-SML dated 18-04-2000 issued by the 3rd respondent by which the request of the petitioner was negatived stating that they have already informed earlier to the eﬀect that it is not possible to provide employment to him. The father of the petitioner, who worked in the respondent-Corporation as Driver at Simhachalam Depot, while in service died on 21-10-1994. The mother of the petitioner made an application to the respondent-Corporation on 20-12-1996 requesting to provide employment to the petitioner, but however, the 3rd respondent by the letter No.M2/756(9)/94SM dated 07-07-1997 informed her that as the petitioner has not attained the eligible age for providing employment he cannot be provided any employment on compassionate grounds and instructed her to claim additional monetary benefit in lieu of employment. It is the case of the petitioner that inasmuch as the application was made within three years after the death of his father he is entitled to be provided employment in the respondent-Corporation after attaining the age of majority. However, it is not in dispute that the scheme for providing employment on compassionate grounds contemplates that applications have to be ﬁled within three years from the date of death of an employee. In this case, even within three years of the death of his father also, the petitioner could not attain the eligible age and so he is not entitled to provide employment on compassionate grounds. More so, it is stated in the counter aﬃdavit that except the posts of Driver and Conductor, which are productive in nature, for all other posts there is a ban imposed on the respondent-Corporation for recruitment. It is now well settled that the provision relating to provide employment on compassionate grounds is to be considered within the framework of the scheme itself. As per the available scheme there is no exemption as to age restrictions, etc. Though the mother of the petitioner made an application for providing employment to the petitioner, the petitioner was not eligible at the time of considering his case due to his underage. The outer limit for making an application for providing employment is within three years from the date of death of an employee. Even within the said period also the petitioner could not attain the eligible age to seek employment. In that view of the matter, I do not ﬁnd any illegality in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for providing employment on compassionate grounds. Further, it is to be noted that the father of the petitioner expired on 21-10-1994 i.e. nearly 14 years back. The very object of the scheme is to provide employment to a member of the bereaved family subject to eligibility as an immediate measure. In view of the paucity of time, no direction can be given at this stage more so when the respondent-Corporation rejected it on valid grounds. At the same time, it is not in dispute that as per the available breadwinner scheme in the respondent- Corporation the bereaved family is eligible for additional monetary beneﬁt in lieu of employment. In that view of the matter, I permit the petitioner to make a fresh application to the respondent-Corporation for grant of additional monetary beneﬁt within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on ﬁling such application the respondent- Corporation shall consider and pass appropriate orders determining the eligibility and quantum of additional monetary beneﬁt for which he is entitled to and steps shall be taken for payment of the said amount within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of such application. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. September 16, 2008 CVRK