THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.3505 of 2001 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted calling in question the legality and correctness of the Order dated 27-11-2000, passed by the Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Tirupati (henceforth referred to as ‘the Corporation’), rejecting the claim of the 1st petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate grounds in favour of the 2nd petitioner, who is her son. Heard Ms. Premalatha for Mrs.W.V.S. Rajeswari, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. The facts that gave raise to this claim are that, the husband of the 1st petitioner and the father of the 2nd petitioner, Sri M. Syed Ali, while working as Conductor with the Corporation, died on 15-05-1992 due to Cardiac Arrest. It is alleged that the 1st petitioner submitted a representation on 25-05-1992 seeking appointment in her favour as a Sweeper and also for settling the terminal benefits payable to the deceased Sri M. Syed Ali. On the ground that the said representation has not been disposed of and in the mean time her son – 2nd petitioner herein has attained the age of majority, another representation was drawn and was submitted on 05-07- 2000. As the said representation was also not disposed, W.P.No.21029 of 2000 was instituted in this Court seeking directions to the respondents to consider the case of the 2nd petitioner for appointment to the post of Cleaner / Conductor or any other suitable post in the Corporation. That writ petition was disposed of on 06-11- 2000, by directing the respondents to take into account and consideration the representation said to have been submitted by the 1st petitioner and dispose the same within two months. Thereafter, the present Order dated 27-11-2000 has been passed, rejecting the claim for appointment on compassionate basis, assigning two reasons: 1) at the time of the death of Sri Syed Ali, i.e. 15- 05-1992, the 2nd petitioner was hardly ten years old, as his date of birth is 16-05-1982; and 2) the 1st petitioner has chosen to seek appointment on compassionate ground in favour of the 2nd petitioner only in the year 2000, i.e., long after the death of Sri Syed Ali and hence, for the inordinate delay in staking a claim for appointment on compassionate basis, the claim is found liable to be rejected. It is contended in this writ petition that the reasons assigned for rejection of the claim are untenable and unsustainable, for, the 1st petitioner has submitted a representation as early as on 25-05-1992, staking a claim for appointment on compassionate basis and such a representation has not been favorably considered by the Corporation for no valid or justifiable reasons and hence, the question of treating the claim of the 1st petitioner as a belated one does not arise. Secondly, the 2nd petitioner was solicited to be appointed in the Corporation no sooner he has attained the age of 18 years, which is the minimum age that is required to be employed in the Corporation. I am afraid, both the grounds agitated in the writ petition are unsustainable. Firstly, the representation said to have been submitted on 25-05-1992 soliciting appointment of the 1st petitioner as a Sweeper in the Corporation, whereas the present writ petition essentially seeks directions to the respondent authorities for considering the case of the 2nd petitioner for appointment to any suitable post. The 2nd petitioner was only aged ten years at the time of death of Sir M. Syed Ali, as his date of birth is 16-05-1982, hence, the 1st petitioner could not have solicited any appointment to be made in favour of the 2nd petitioner any time prior to his attaining the age of 18 years, which is the minimum eligibility requirement for getting employed in the Corporation. Hence, the 1st petitioner has waited till July 2000 for staking a claim for employment of the 2nd petitioner. Therefore, the claim made in the year 2000, which is made after eight years after the death of Sri M. Syed Ali, is bound to be considered as a belated claim. No exception need be drawn in that regard. Further, if the family of the deceased Syed Ali was able to survive for eight long years on their own, there will not be any justification for soliciting appointment on compassionate grounds. The Scheme introduced by the respondent Corporation for providing employment on compassionate grounds in favour any of the family members of a deceased employee, was with a view to provide a minimum support and succor to the distressed family of the deceased employee. If the family of the deceased employee is able to sustain and survive on their own, the question of extending compassion for the purposes of making a departure from the normal practice of throwing open the employment opportunities to the public would not arise. It would be appropriate in this regard to recall what the Supreme Court has pointed out in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana[1], wherein, the Supreme Court referred to an earlier judgment in Sushma Gosain v. Union of India[2] and observed: “………..As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non- manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz. relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.” The Supreme Court then considered whether the appointment on compassionate ground can be claimed after long lapse of time and observed: “For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” Therefore, I do not find any valid or justifiable reason to interfere with the Order passed on 27-11-2000 by the Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Tirupati, rejecting the claim for appointment of the 2nd petitioner herein on compassionate grounds. This apart, the 2nd petitioner appears to have studied up to S.S.C. (X class). It is claimed that he failed in the said examination. The minimum academic qualification that is needed for recruiting any person as a Conductor in the Corporation is a pass in X class. Even on this ground, the 2nd petitioner is not eligible to solicit such an appointment. The petitioners, however, have made a grievance that the terminal benefits payable have also not been paid. However, it was brought out by the respondents in Paragraph No.4 of their counter affidavit that Smt. M. Mahaboob Bee and Sri M. Mohiddin, claiming to be the 1st wife of Sri Syed Ali and their son, have instituted a civil suit in O.S.No.46 of 1994, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, impleading various authorities of the Corporation as Defendants 1 to 4 to the said Suit. The 1st petitioner herein has been impleaded as 5th defendant in the said Suit. The Plaintiffs in the said Suit sought for a declaration that they are the legal representatives of the deceased Sri Syed Ali and that they are entitled to receive the amounts representing the terminal benefits mentioned in ‘A’ Schedule to the Plaint from the Defendants 1 to 4. The said Suit was contested by Defendants 1 to 4 as well as Defendant 5 – the 1st petitioner herein. It was brought out during the course of the trial of the said Suit that Sri Syed Ali has pronounced three times ‘Thalak’ on 13-05-1988 in the presence of the ‘Khaji’ and one other individual and communicated the said fact also to the 1st plaintiff and thus, he brought about a severance of relationship of wife and husband between himself (Syed Ali) and the 1st plaintiff in O.S.No.46 of 1994 (Smt. Mahaboob Bee). It was further brought out that Smt. Mahaboob Bee has also filed earlier another civil suit in O.S.No.15 of 1988, before the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirupati, seeking maintenance from the deceased Syed Ali and that during the pendency of the said Suit, Sri Syed Ali executed a settlement deed on 21-10-1989, gifting a house property to the 1st plaintiff (Smt. Mahaboob Bee) in O.S.No.46 of 1994, towards her maintenance and for the benefit of their son – 2nd plaintiff in the aforementioned Suit. Thereupon Smt. Mahaboob Bee has executed registered relinquishment deed on 21-10-1989 giving up all her rights in the pension, gratuity and the estate of the deceased Syed Ali and hence, Smt. Mahaboob Bee has no justifiable or tenable claim to stake a claim in the terminal benefits payable to Sri Syed Ali. In view of the evidence that was marshalled before the said Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Tirupati, by Judgment dated 09-09- 1999, the said Suit has been dismissed with costs. In view of the pendency of this civil suit, the respondents could not settle the terminal benefits, but however, the following terminal benefits are said to have been settled in favour of the 1st petitioner herein and these particulars have been furnished at Paragraph No.4 of their counter affidavit: S.No. Particulars Amount paid Date of payment 1. SBIF 58,954.00 31.02.92 2. EDLIF 25,500.00 04.07.92 3. Gratuity 14,820.75 07.08.92 4. Settlement Salary 1,747.76 07.08.92 5. PF 30,286.00 13.1.2000 Therefore, it is crystal clear that for reasons of parallel claims, the respondent corporation could not settle the terminal benefits of Sri Syed Ali in time. While passing the impugned order, it was made clear by the Corporation that due to a change in their policy, they are now offering additional monitory benefit in lieu of employment on compassionate basis, therefore, they solicited the 1st applicant to submit an application to the Depot Manager, Tirupati–II, for receiving the said additional monitory benefit. In view of the pendency of this writ petition, perhaps, the writ petitioners may not have made such a claim. Now that the writ petition is being decided, if the writ petitioners make any such claim in writing within three months from today, the Depot Manager, Tirupati –II, may settle the additional monitory benefit in lieu of employment on compassionate basis on the 1st petitioner within a maximum period of 45 days from the date of receipt of such a claim. Subject to what has been stated supra, there are no merits in this writ petition and it is dismissed. No costs. -------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 6th November 2009 [1] (1994) 4 SCC 138 [2] (1989) 4 SCC 468