THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.602 OF 2004 ORDER:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao) This writ appeal is preferred against the Judgment rendered by the learned single Judge allowing the Writ Petition No.16426 of 2003, which was preferred by the respondent herein who is the father of the deceased employee of the appellant-Corporation. The writ petitioner, the father and a dependent, of the deceased employee, staked a claim with the corporation for payment of additional monetary benefit in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds, due to the death of his daughter who was employed with the appellant-Corporation. But however, we have noticed from the Circular No.PD-90/1990 dated 27.07.1990, that the Corporation has superseded all earlier instructions and clarified that the monetary benefit/employment which is to be extended to the dependants of the deceased employees, is limited to the wife/children of the deceased employee only and not to other relations such as mother/father etc are entitled. In such cases, the terminal benefits were ordered to be settled in favour of the nominee or the legal heir of the deceased employee. 2. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Lathker, for the appellant as well as Sri G. Vidyasagar for the respondent. 3. In the instant case, there is no dispute whatsoever that the appellant-Corporation has settled the terminal benefits payable to the nominee/legal heir of the deceased employee. The claim is made with regard to the additional monetary benefits in lieu of employment. In view of the circular dated 27.07.1990 of the Corporation, the scope for consideration has been confined, in such cases only to the spouse/children of the deceased employee and it cannot be extended either to mother or father or any other dependant relations of the deceased employee. 4. In the absence of a valid challenge to the said circular, the writ petitioner could not have staked a claim for payment of additional monetary benefit as he is not a child of the deceased employee but the father of the deceased employee. 5. Therefore, the writ appeal is allowed. The Order and the Judgment rendered by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.16426 of 2006 is set-aside. No costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J sp 30.11.2011 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.602 OF 2004 30th November, 2011 sp