IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 4839 of 2001 BETWEEN: R.Ramalaxmi, W/o.Late B.Appa Rao, R/o.Maddipalem, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad-500 020. 2 The Executive Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Vizianagaram. 3 The Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C.,Visakhapatnam. 4 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C.,Visakhapatnam. .....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 any writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of MANDAMUS declaring the inaction on the part of the respondent Corporation in considering the Petitioner's case for compassionate appointment under the Bread Winner Scheme of the Corporation as illegal, arbitrary and by set-aside the proceedings No.L1/876(16)98-PM. VSP dated:20.2.1998 direct the respondent Corporation to appoint her on compassionate grounds to any suitable post forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner : DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased-employee of the Respondent-Corporation, has questioned the Proceedings, dated 20th February 1998, passed by respondent No.4 in Proceedings No.L1/876(16)98-PM.VSP, whereby her claim for appointment on compassionate grounds, was rejected. 2. The husband of the petitioner by name Sri B.Appa Rao was working as a Cleaner in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’), and was attached to Maddipalem Depot. While in service, he died on 14th January 1991. The petitioner, on the ground that though she is entitled for compassionate appointment as per the ‘Bread Winner Scheme’ introduced by the Corporation, her claim was not being considered, has approached this Court by filing writ petition No.1984 of 1998. By an order dated 2nd February 1998, this Court disposed of the said writ petition, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months therefrom. 3. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, which are referred to in the impugned order, the case of the petitioner was considered and rejected. In the impugned order, it is stated that the petitioner is not eligible to be appointed as a Conductor and there is a ban on recruitment to other posts, namely, Sweepers and Office boys, etc. Though the petitioner has stated that her claim was not considered as per the scheme in force despite there being the vacant posts of Cleaners, but in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the claim of the petitioner was considered as per the directions issued by this Court and as much as the petitioner is not eligible to be appointed as Conductor due to lack of qualifications, her case was not considered. It is also stated that there is a ban in the Corporation, on recruitment of other posts. 4. It is now fairly well settled that the claims for compassionate appointments have to be considered within the frame work of the scheme which is in force. Except the right conferred under the scheme, there is no other independent or additional right for the claimants, to claim appointment on compassionate grounds. In the absence of any exemption from qualifications provided for in the scheme, and when it is stated that the petitioner was not qualified to hold the post of Conductor, it cannot be said that the said decision is either illegal or arbitrary. More over, with regard to other posts, it is categorically stated that there is a ban on making appointments to all other posts. When it is stated that as a policy decision such a ban is imposed, it cannot be said that the same is either illegal or arbitrary, and no direction can be given for appointment inspite of such ban. Further, in a recent Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Valluru Venkata Narayana[1], this Court has held that no directions can be given for making appointments against the policy of an organization. 5. For the reasons referred above and in view of the judgment of this Court referred above, no directions can be given for appointment of petitioner on compassionate grounds. But however, it is made clear that if the petitioner is entitled for any additional monetary benefit in lieu of compassionate appointment, it is open for her to apply for such benefits. If any such application is made for additional monetary benefit, the respondents shall consider it and determine the entitlement of petitioner for such benefit, and accordingly pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such application and communicate the same to the petitioner. 6. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 1st December 2008 ajr [1] 2008 (3) ALT 5 (DB)