IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 22665 of 2003 Between: G.Srinivasu, S/o. Late G.Ramu, R/o. D.No.26-21-11, Poorna Market, Velamapeta, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The APSRTC, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam District. 3 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Depot Manager, Maddilapalem Depot, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein not considering the case of the petitioner for appointment for cleaner/shramik or for any suitable post and rejecting my case vide orders in Proc.No.P2/785(7)/2001-RM/VSP, Visakhapatnam Dt. 22-2-2002 is arbitrary, discrimination, illegal, unjust, arbitrary and against to the well established principles of law and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to consider the case of the petitioner for any suitable post forthwith in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORDER: The writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner questioning the proceedings No.P2/785(7)/2001-RM/VSP, dated 22-02- 2002 issued by the second respondent rejecting the case of the petitioner for the post of Shramik under the deceased employees quota at present and alternatively informing the petitioner that there is a provision for payment of additional monetary beneﬁt in lieu of employment, which can be availed by the spouse of the deceased employee by duly submitting the claim to the Depot Manager. The case of the petitioner is that his father worked as Helper in the respondent-Corporation and died in harness on 02-01-1999. The petitioner is the son of the deceased by name G.Ramu. As soon as the death of his father, he ﬁled a representation dated 07-02-1999 and again on 13-10-2000, requesting the respondents to consider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. Basing on the said representations the petitioner was interviewed to the post of Cleaner and examined for medical ﬁtness in 2000 and declared that he is ﬁt for the post of cleaner but he was not appointed. Therefore, he ﬁled W.P.No.26339 of 2001 seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his case for Cleaner on compassionate grounds. This Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders pursuant to the interview held on 18-02-2000. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the impugned proceedings were passed by the respondents stating that there are no vacancies for the post of Shramik under deceased employees quota “at present” and the recruitment is banned in respect of other categories of posts of Attender and Sweeper in the Corporation. This Court granted interim direction on 28-10-2003, while admitting the writ petition, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Cleaner/Shramik or for any suitable post, if the vacancies are available and if the writ petitioner is otherwise suitable. On behalf of the respondents the counter-aﬃdavit has been ﬁled stating that the petitioner’s case has already been considered and rejected vide proceedings dated 27-11- 2003 stating that there is a ban in the APSRTC for recruitment of Sweeper/Scavenger/Attender posts of Shramik under the deceased employees quota. The petitioner herein is the son of the deceased employee who worked as helper and died in harness on 02- 01-1999. His case is that he is entitled for consideration for compassionate appointment either as a Shramik/Cleaner or Sweeper. In the proceedings dated 22-02-2002 issued by the second respondent the case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that there are no vacancies to the post of Shramik under the deceased employees quota “at present” and there is a ban in respect of other categories of posts of Attenders and Sweepers. In the counter ﬁled by the respondent it is stated that even pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court on 28-10-2003 the case of the petitioner was considered and rejected vide proceedings dated 27-11-2003 on the ground that there is a ban in APSRTC for recruitment of Sweeper/Scavenger/Attender posts and there are no vacancies available to the post of Shramik in Visakhapatnam region under the deceased employees quota and he is not having requisite qualiﬁcation to consider his case for the post of Conductor and that the petitioner is entitled to avail the additional monetary beneﬁt at his option. The counter-aﬃdavit has been ﬁled in 2005. Subsequent thereto, no information is available before this Court as to whether there are any vacancies in the respondent-Corporation to the post of Shramik and whether the ban, that is stated to be in force in the matter of appointment to the posts of Sweeper/Scavenger/Attender has been lifted or not, and whether such a ban will come in the way of appointment of the dependants of the employees who died in harness. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for consideration to any of the posts to which the petitioner is suitable on compassionate grounds. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Cleaner or Shramik or for any suitable post in the vacancies that are available, if the petitioner is otherwise suitable. No order as to costs. __________________ 16th September, 2008 SKM