THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.36197 of 1998 Dated 30-01-2008 Between: Smt G.Suvarthamma. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Prakasam division & another. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.36197 of 1998 O R D E R: Questioning the proceedings dated 02-07-1998, issued by the first respondent, refusing to appoint the petitioner’s son, Sri G.Yohan, as cleaner or in any other suitable post on the ground that the petitioner’s elder son, Sri G.Simon, was working as electrician at Addanki depot, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner, widow of a mechanic working in the respondent-Corporation, claims appointment to her younger son on compassionate grounds. Since his case was not considered, petitioner’s son filed W.P.No.21683 of 1996, which was disposed of on 29-10-1996, directing the respondents to consider his case in terms of W.P.No.15163 of 1996 and batch dated 29-10-1996. Petitioner submitted another representation contending that her elder son, Sri G.Simon, was not appointed under Bread Winner Scheme and that, in any event, he was living separately and was neglecting the family, which according to her justified her second son, Sri G.Yohan, being appointed on compassionate grounds under the Bread Winner Scheme. In the impugned order dated 02-07-1998, the Regional Manager, Prakasam Region, informed the petitioner that, pursuant to the circular dated 07-12-1993, instructions were issued not to entertain applications under Bread Winner Scheme, in case, any of the family members were already employed and since her elder son, Sri G.Simon, was already employed, no appointment could be given to her second son, Sri G.Yohan, under the Bread Winner Scheme. It is not in dispute that the Bread Winner Scheme stipulates a condition that no appointment could be made under the scheme if one of the family members of the deceased was already employed. While such a condition could, no doubt, be onerous, where theperson already employed by the A.P.S.R.T.C. chooses to neglect the family, these questions cannot be gone into in the present case in the absence of any challenge to the validity of the Bread Winner Scheme. Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation, would place before this Court a Division Bench judgment of this Court in G.C.Nagaraju v. APSRTC, Managing Director, Hyderabad[1], wherein the Division Bench held that, as per the circulars issued by the Corporation, once a member of the family was an earning member, the other members were not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. Learned standing counsel would submit that the said judgment is binding, requires adherence and the relief sought for cannot, therefore, be granted. Sri M.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would state that the respondent-Corporation has since given a go-bye to the Bread Winner Scheme and is instead offering additional monetary benefit. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner has not availed the additional monetary benefit. Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned standing counsel, while fairly stating that there is such a scheme in existence, would express ignorance as to whether the petitioner was entitled to additional monetary benefits or whether she had availed the said benefit. Ends of justice would be met if the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for being given the additional monetary benefit in accordance with any scheme or circulars in force. In case the petitioner is eligible, and has not been extended the said benefit, the respondent-Corporation shall pay her the said amount within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ 30-01-2008 usd [1]1996(1) ALT 716 (DB)