THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.26628 of 1998 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted by the son of a former employee of A.P.S.R.T.C. soliciting directions to the respondent- A.P.S.R.T.C. authorities to consider his case for appointment against any suitable post on compassionate grounds. Heard Sri S.Jagadish, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.W.V.S.Rajeshwari, learned counsel for the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that his father was initially engaged in the T.T.D. Transport Wing, Tirupathi Devasthanam and subsequent to transfer of the Transport Wing of T.T.D. to the control of A.P.S.R.T.C., he came to become an employee of A.P.S.R.T.C. in the year 1975. While he was working with Tirupati-II Depot, he sought for voluntary retirement on 01-08-1992. He also sought for consideration of the case of his son for appointment on compassionate grounds in lieu of proceeding on voluntary retirement. The offer made by the writ petitioner’s father on 01-08-1992 has been accepted by the Depot Manager, Tirupati-II, through his order, dated 17-10-1992. It is stated therein that Sri A.Srinivasulu, the father of the writ petitioner herein, would be completing 20 years of qualifying service by 31-10-1992 and hence, he is permitted to retire from service voluntarily with effect from 31-10-1992 afternoon. Accordingly, the father of the writ petitioner had retired and subsequently on 04-11- 1993 he died. The writ petitioner herein submitted a representation on 16-12-1992 praying for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. In view of his father’s health condition, he was forced to retire voluntarily though he has few more years left behind him for attaining the age of superannuation. Such a representation was followed up by another representation submitted on 15-01-1998. Since these representations are not considered by the respondent, the present writ petition came to be instituted. APSRTC has contested this writ petition by filing a detailed counter affidavit. It is stated that the father of the writ petitioner herein has been permitted to retire from service on voluntary basis on 31-10- 1992 and at the time when the writ petitioner initially sought for employment in December, 1992 he was only 19 years old and the minimum age needed for any candidate to be recruited as Conductor of APSRTC was 21 years and hence, his case would not be taken up for such appointment. It was also further pointed out that the respondent-APSRTC through Circular No.PD-13/95, dated 15-02- 1995, had withdrawn the earlier policy decision of appointing the children of voluntarily retired employees. Since from 1995 onwards the appointment of children of voluntarily retired employees on compassionate grounds was withdrawn, the question of considering the case of any of the dependants of the voluntarily retired employees of the Corporation would not arise. In these set of circumstances, the Corporation has pointed out that the writ petitioner has no right to claim for consideration of his case for recruitment on compassionate grounds in the service of APSRTC and he has to necessarily contest along with all other candidates in the open market. However, towards the end of para 3 of the counter affidavit, this is what has been stated by the respondents. “It is open to the petitioner to claim the amount, if any due to his father and the same will be released to the legal representatives of the retired employee on production of legal heir certificate.” In view of this statement, it is certainly open to the petitioner or his mother to stake a claim for any of the benefits, which are due and payable either to the father of the petitioner or after his death to his legal heirs. I have no doubt in my mind that as and when any such claim is made either by the petitioner or his mother, the same will be considered on its merits and appropriate decision thereon will be taken within a maximum period of three months. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed except to the extent indicated supra viz., that it is open to the petitioner or his mother to stake any other benefit which the Corporation is liable to pay either to the deceased employee or his legal representatives. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Prv