THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR Writ Petition No. 306 of 2004 Between: N.Suguna. ..... APPELLANT AND The A.P.S.R.T.C. rep by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.306 of 2004 ORDER: The widow of a deceased Conductor of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.) challenges the proceedings dated 10.03.2000 issued by the A.P.S.R.T.C. rejecting her request for providing appointment to her son on compassionate grounds and seeks a consequential direction to consider his case for appointment to any suitable post. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition discloses the following averments: The petitioner’s husband, late N.Bhadraiah, was a Conductor of the A.P.S.R.T.C. and expired while in service on 20.01.1997 leaving behind the petitioner and four children. The application made by the petitioner’s son for compassionate appointment was rejected by proceedings dated 27.09.1997, whereby the A.P.S.R.T.C. pointed out that he had not attained the age of 18 years and would therefore be ineligible for consideration for appointment. It is stated that the petitioner and her family kept quiet thereafter as none of the children of the deceased employee were eligible in terms of the age requirement. Meanwhile, the petitioner’s son also completed B.Com degree course in the year 2002. The petitioner once again made a request on 13.01.2000 to the Regional Manager of the A.P.S.R.T.C. at Secunderabad requesting consideration of her son’s case for appointment under the bread- winner scheme. However, the said request was rejected under the impugned proceedings dated 10.03.2000 stating that the petitioner’s son was yet to complete 18 years of age and, therefore, could not be considered for employment under the said scheme. The petitioner was advised to prefer a claim for payment of additional monetary benefits in lieu of employment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. Sri S.Surendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that his client and her family were still living in penury, as the children could not secure employment. He asserted that the action of the A.P.S.R.T.C. in rejecting the case of the petitioner’s son for employment was not legally sustainable and sought a direction to the A.P.S.R.T.C. to consider the petitioner’s son’s case for appointment to any suitable post. No counter has been filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the A.P.S.R.T.C., contended that the petitioner’s husband, being an employee of the A.P.S.R.T.C., died as long back as in the year 1997 and, therefore, it was not open to the petitioner or her family members to seek employment on compassionate grounds relatable to the bread- winner scheme. He further stated that the A.P.S.R.T.C. had offered additional monetary benefits in lieu of employment and it is the petitioner’s own fault that she was deprived of that benefit till now, having failed to avail the same. The facts on record demonstrate that the petitioner’s husband, being a Conductor in the A.P.S.R.T.C., died on 20.01.1997 and this writ petition was filed in the year 2004, challenging the proceedings of the year 2000. Trite to state, compassionate appointment on the ground of the death of the bread-winner is not a method of recruitment and is only a measure to alleviate the plight of the family of the deceased employee, which is deprived of its livelihood owing to his/her sudden death. The same cannot be treated as a mode of recruitment. By its very nature, such an appointment can only be sought within a time frame relatable to the death of the bread earner. In such circumstances, it is not open to the petitioner to now seek appointment for her son in the A.P.S.R.T.C. on compassionate grounds owing to the death of her husband. It is, however, to be noticed that the petitioner did not avail the additional monetary benefits, which she was entitled to in lieu of employment, being in the fond hope that the A.P.S.R.T.C. would extend employment to her son. It is stated that presently, the additional monetary benefits in lieu of employment have been enhanced as per the scheme to a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner and her family members did not avail this benefit since the year 1997, I am of the view that justice would be sufficiently served by directing the A.P.S.R.T.C. to extend the enhanced additional monetary benefits of Rs.1.00 lakh to the petitioner and her family members. This exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs. SANJAY KUMAR,J Dt:03.09.2009 usd