IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 35143 of 1998 Between: 1 Smt.P.Ramanujamma, W/o. Late P.V.Vasantha Rao, H.No.6-15-36, MIGH-36, APHB Colony, K.T.Road, Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist. 2 A.Amareswararao, W/o. Late P.V.Vasantha Rao, H.No.6-15-36, MIGH-36, APHB Colony, K.T.Road, Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist. 2 The Personnel Officer, O/o. Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist. .....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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction mare particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not appointing the 2nd Petitioner as a Conductor or any other suitable post under Deceased Employees Children Quota as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and violative Art.14 of the Constitution of India & consequently direct the 2nd Respondents to appoint the 2nd Petitioner herein as a Conductor or any suitable post under Deceased Employees Children Quota and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.RAGHAVAN K. THALAPAKA Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C., to appoint the second petitioner as a conductor on compassionate grounds. The first petitioner is the mother of the second petitioner. It is their case that the father of the second petitioner and the husband of the first petitioner, Sri P.V. Vasantharao, while working at Tirupathi collapsed and died on 18.01.1997 due to a massive heart attack. He has thus died in harness leaving his family to fend for themselves. The A.P.S.R.T.C. had framed a scheme to offer employment to one of the family members of the employees, who died in harness. The scheme is intended to provide some reasonable succor to the employees, who die leaving behind their family members, who will not be able to survive in the absence of the breadwinner. Rationality of the scheme being that they must provide for the welfare of the family of the deceased employees, who during their life time have contributed to the productivity of the organisation. But however, if any other person in the family is already in employment and is thus able to earn, the other members of the family will not be eligible to seek appointment on compassionate grounds, as according to A.P.S.R.T.C. such families are not without a source of sustenance. But however, in the instant case, the Corporation, while entertaining the claim and case of the second petitioner for recruitment, found that yet another family member of late P.V. Vasantharao, namely, Sri Visweswara Rao is working in the A.P.S.R.T.C. as a conductor at Satyaveedu Depot, and hence they have not chosen to appoint the second petitioner herein. Unfortunately, the scheme formulated by the employer is intended to serve such families who are in the need of urgent help from the employer. Entertaining the claims of the dependents for employment is itself an exception to the normal procedure of throwing open the opportunities of employment to all other qualified candidates in the open market. Therefore, if the scheme has been framed and it has certain conditions to be complied with, no one can complain about such conditions imposed by the employer for rendering such welfare schemes applicable. In fact, the scheme of compassionate appointment has not been given effect to by the A.P.S.R.T.C in view of the broad guidelines circulated by the State Government through G.O.Ms.No.36, Public Enterprises (III) Department, dated 5.09.2001 advising all the Public Sector Enterprises of the State not to make any appointment on compassionate grounds. In the face of such a policy decision taken by the State Government, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.1351 and 2084 of 2002 held that in view of the present policy of the State Government, it would be difficult to direct the first respondent Corporation, to continue to make further appointments on compassionate grounds. If a policy has been replaced with yet another policy, then no one can compel the Corporation to give effect to the earlier policy decision. Reliance can be placed in this regard on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court reported in A.P.S.R.T.C. and others v. Kaiser Begum[1]. In view of what has been stated supra, I do not find any justification for granting the relief in the writ petition as prayed for by the petitioners. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J.) 29th February, 2008 Js. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 2 CD copies. [1] (1998) 9 SCC 398