IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 4806 of 2000 Between: Smt. K.Balanagamma, W/o Late Sri K.Ranganna, R/o H.No.11/195, R.K.Nagar, behing Govt. Hospital, Pattikonda. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Zonal Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Cuddapah. 3 The Regional Manager A.P.S.R.T.C., Kurnool. 4 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Dhone Depot, Kurnool. .....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 issue a Writ order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not providing a job of Sweeper/Attender in the respondent Corporation on compassionate ground as illegal, arbitrary unjust and violative of Article 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Sweeper/ Attender or any other suitable post on compassionate grounds without reference to ban on recruitment and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.CHANDRAIH NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to declare the inaction on the part of the respondent-Corporation in providing the petitioner a job of Sweeper/Attender on compassionate grounds as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to direct the respondent-Corporation to appoint her in the post of Sweeper/Attender on compassionate grounds without reference to the ban on such recruitment. The husband of the petitioner was working as a Conductor in the respondent-Corporation at Dhone Depot of Kurnool Division and while in service he died on 12-02-1998. The petitioner made a representation to the respondent-Corporation on 02-07-1998 for providing employment to her as a Sweeper/Attender under compassionate grounds. Since she was not given any such appointment, the petitioner made another representation to the respondent-Corporation in 1999. It is the case of the petitioner that inasmuch as her husband died while in service, as per the scheme available for compassionate appointments, she is entitled for the post of Sweeper/Attender. Counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled on behalf of the respondent-Corporation. While admitting the death of the husband of the petitioner during service on 12-02- 1998 and the petitioner’s representation dated 02-07- 1998 requesting to provide employment under breadwinner scheme, it is stated therein that the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the third respondent in view of the ban imposed for appointments in the respondent-Corporation. It is stated that except for the posts of Drivers Grade-II, Conductors Grade-II and Cleaners, which are productive in nature, no other appointments are being made. It is also stated that since the works of Sweeper/Attender are being entrusted on contract basis, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment to the post of Sweeper/Attender. A reference was made therein to a judgment of the Apex Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. v. KAISER BEGUM[1] wherein the directions issued by this Court were modified. However, it is stated that the petitioner is entitled to claim additional monitory beneﬁt as per the scheme. It is well settled that the rights of parties for compassionate appointments are to be considered within the framework of the scheme itself. When it is stated that there is a ban imposed on recruitment of Sweepers/Attenders, no direction can be granted as prayed for. In view of the ban imposed on the Corporation for recruitment, the petitioner, as a matter of right, cannot seek directions for appointment to the post of Sweeper/Attender under compassionate grounds. In any event, since it is stated that as per the scheme the petitioner is entitled for additional monitory benefit, I dispose of the writ petition permitting her to ﬁle an application for grant of additional monitory beneﬁt within a period of four weeks from today and on ﬁling such application the respondents shall consider and pass appropriate orders as per the scheme existing at the relevant point of time determining the eligibility and quantum of additional monitory beneﬁt and steps shall be taken for payment of such amount, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such application. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ----------------------------- R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 15th September 2008 Note: Office to issue C.C. in three days. B/o CVRK [1] AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 3213