HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI WRIT PETITION No.4747 OF 2001 ORDER: The writ petition is filed seeking a direction against the respondents-Road Transport Corporation, to consider the case of the petitioner’s son for appointment under compassionate appointment scheme in the place of her husband M. Mahalakshmi Naidu, who expired, while in service, in the 1st respondent- Corporation. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner, so far as they are relevant for the purpose of disposal of, the writ petition are that the petitioner’s husband expired on 25.05.1993 while he was in service as a Helper in the 1st respondent-Corporation; that the petitioner made a representation to the respondent-Corporation to provide a job for her elder son on compassionate grounds in the deceased employees quota in the respondents-Corporation; but the respondents did not consider the case of the petitioner; pursuant to the representation made by the petitioner, the 1st respondent-Depot Manager issued the proceedings dated 09.07.1996 stating that there is no possibility to consider the appointment of her son, as he is not possessing the qualifications; that the 1st respondent asked the petitioner to send an option, to get monitory benefits in lieu of seeking appointment on compassionate grounds; that the petitioner has not given any option for monetary benefits in lieu of appointment. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent- Corporation stating that the minimum age required for consideration of the cases for employment is 18 years; that the 2 petitioner’s son attained the age of 18 years on 09.11.1998; whereas the three years limitation period elapsed by 22.05.1996; and hence the petitioner was advised to prefer a claim for additional monitory benefits in lieu of the employment. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s son has crossed the age limit for being considered under the scheme for compassionate appointment and as the respondents advised the petitioner to opt for preferring a claim for additional monitory benefit, the petitioner would be entitled to opt for the same. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that as the petitioner is entitled for additional monitory benefits, in lieu of compassionate appointment, she will be paid the said amount. In view of the submissions made by either counsel, the petitioner is directed to submit an application to the respondents 1 and 2 for additional monitory benefits within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to dispose of the said application and pay the amount which the petitioner is entitled to within a period of eight weeks thereafter. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this writ petition shall also stand closed. _________________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J 3 29th March, 2018 Gk 4 HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI WRIT PETITION No.4747 OF 2001 29.03.2018 Gk