IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 26030 of 2008 Between: Smt.M.Vijaya Lakshmi W/o.Late M.S.Narayana R/o.Reddika Veedhi, Gujarathipeta, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Regional Manager, North East Costal Region, Vizianagaram Region, Vizianagaram District. 2 A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Depot Manager, Tekkali Bus Depot, Tekkali, Srikakulam District. .....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 Writ, order direction of the Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not releasing the Additional Monetary benefits to the petitioner in lieu of the compassionate appointment solely on the ground that the petitioner not produced the clearance certificate from the A.P. Trade Promotion Corporation Ltd., for the amount of Mr.D.Ramana, E.No.451918 of Rs.16,212/- is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to pay the Additional Monetary benefits to the petitioner without insisting clearance certificate from the A.P. Trade Promotion Corporation Ltd., and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.SHIVA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.C.APPAIAH SHARMA The Court made the following ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking to declare the action of the 2nd respondent Depot Manager, APSRTC, Tekkali in not releasing the Additional monetary benefits to her in lieu of compassionate appointment on the ground of her not producing clearance certificate from the A.P.Trade Promotion Corporation Limited for the amount payable by one D.Ramana as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to pay the additional monetary benefits. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation and at their request the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband was an employee of the respondent A.P.State Road Transport Corporation and he died on 2.5.2004 leaving the petitioner and four daughters. On her giving several representations to provide with compassionate appointment, the respondent authorities informed her to avail the additional monetary benefits in lieu of the compassionate appointment as there is a ban imposed on such appointments. Therefore, she opted for taking additional monetary benefits. While the matters stood thus, by proceedings dated 26.3.2008 the 2nd respondent advised her to bring clearance certificate from the Deputy General Manager of A.P.Trade Promotion Corporation Limited. The grievance of the petitioner is that though she cleared all the dues of her husband, the clearance certificate is not issued by the A.P.Trade Promotion Corporation on the ground that during the life time of her husband, he stood as surety to a co-employee for an amount of Rs.16,212/- and as the said amount was not paid by that employee, the amounts payable to the petitioner are not being paid. Once a person gives a guarantee, he or his estate is liable to make good that amount, in case of any default by the original loanee. In the instant case, admittedly, the husband of the petitioner stood as surety to one D.Ramana, a co-employee. Since he committed default in payment of the loan amount, the petitioner, being the surety for the said amount, is liable to pay that amount. Since he died, the petitioner, being his widow cannot take advantage of his death and contend that she cannot be held liable to pay the amount due by the co-employee of her husband to whom her husband stood as surety. The petitioner succeeded to the estate of her husband, which includes the assets as well as liabilities. In the circumstances, the action of the respondents is insisting the petitioner to produce the clearance certificate cannot be found fault with. The writ petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. N.V.RAMANA,J Dt.05.12.2008 msv