HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9267 OF 2011 ORDER: The father of the petitioner was said to be politically active in Khammam District. It is stated that he was killed by the extremists on 04-10-1990. At that time, the petitioner was aged about 15 years. Exgratia of a sum of Rs.10,000/- was said to have been paid. The Government issued G.O. Ms. No.469, dated 08-11-1996, providing for the benefit of compassionate appointment to one member in the family of any person, who was killed in the extremists’ violence. However, facility thereunder was restricted to the instances that have taken place subsequent to the date of issue of the G.O. Since the father of the petitioner was killed on 04-10-1990, no benefit was extended. Recently, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No.504, dated 11-08-2008, directing that the benefit under G.O.Ms. No.469, dated 08-11-1996, shall be extended to the cases, which occurred prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms. No.469. The grievance of the petitioner is that though his case was recommended by various authorities, the 1st respondent is not extending the benefit to him. 2. On behalf of the respondents, counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that in G.O.Ms. No.504, dated 11-08-2008, it was clearly mentioned that the benefit would be extended if only the dependent, seeking employment on compassionate grounds, was eligible as on the date of the incident and that the petitioner was not eligible on the date of the death of his father. 3. Heard Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for General Administration Department. 4. The respondents admit that the father of the petitioner was killed by the extremists in the year 1990. The benefit under G.O.Ms.No.469, dated 08-11-1996, was not extended to the petitioner since it did not apply to the cases, which occurred prior to the date of issuance of that G.O. In the year 2008, the Government revised the policy and extended such benefit irrespective of date of occurrence of the incident. However, it was clearly mentioned that the benefit would be extended if only the dependent was eligible to be appointed as on the date of incident. The relevant paragraph under G.O.Ms.No.504, dated 11-08-2008, reads as under: “4. ……provided that the age and educational qualifications of dependent family member seeking employment shall be satisfied as on the date of death of the respective civilian.” 5. From this, it is clear that the benefit is extendible if only the dependent possessed the age and educational qualifications as on the date of the death of the civilian. Since the petitioner does not fulfill that qualification, he was not extended the benefit. As long as the G.O. stands in the present form, there is no way the petitioner can insist on the respondents to extend the benefit. 6. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is, however, left open to the petitioner to challenge the condition incorporated in G.O.Ms.No.506, dated 11-08-2008. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J September 28, 2011. KTL