THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.20047 of 2000 ORDER: In this Writ Petition the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner in any suitable post on compassionate grounds, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The husband of the petitioner by name N.Srinivasulu was in the service of the respondent – Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation working as conductor. He was terminated from service as a measure of penalty in the disciplinary proceedings by order dated 15-04- 1991. The husband of the petitioner has questioned the said order of termination by raising an industrial dispute in I.D. No.58 of 1994. The Industrial Tribunal passed award on 11-08-1995 and issued directions for reinstatement of the workman, but unfortunately before award is published, as required under Section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the husband of the petitioner died on 04-11-1995, whereas publication was made on 05-12-1995. It is stated that petitioner was also paid all the benefits, which were accrued on account of service rendered by the late husband of the petitioner. 3. In this Writ Petition it is the grievance of the petitioner that though petitioner submitted representation on 04-04-2000 seeking compassionate appointment, but no benefit was extended by appointing the petitioner in any suitable post. It is the further case of the petitioner that in view of the reinstatement order by the Tribunal, the husband of the petitioner deemed to have been in service on the date of his death i.e., 04-11-1995. 4. The counter-affidavit is filed by the Law Officer on behalf of the respondent corporation. While generally denying several allegations made by the petitioner in the paragraph 7 of the counter, it is stated that the petitioner has not submitted any representation on 04-04-2000 as contended by her. It is further stated that in view of the critical financial condition of the Corporation, the scheme of compassionate appointment in the Corporation is dispensed with and in lieu thereof respondents have introduced scheme of payment of additional monetary benefit in lieu of compassion appointments. It is also stated in the counter that it is open for the petitioner to approach the respondents herein by submitting claim forms with regard to benefits, if any, payable to her. 5. In this case it is to be noted that the petitioner was terminated from service as early as 15-04-1991 and though reinstatement direction was issued in the award passed by the industrial tribunal on 11-08-1995, but however, even before reinstatement, workman died on 04-11-1995. In any event, it is also to be noted that even according to the petitioner she submitted representation for compassionate appointment only on 04-04- 2000, which is nearly after five years of the award. In the counter-affidavit, the respondent also denied receipt of such representation dated 04-04-2000. There is no proper explanation for not submitting application, at least immediately after award was passed by the Tribunal. There is no explanation for the inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and as husband of the petitioner died on 04-11-1995 and also taking into account the statement of the respondent that scheme of compassionate appointment itself is dispensed with, no direction can be given for providing employment to the petitioner. 6. As it is stated that it is open for the petitioner to approach the respondents for monetary claim, I permit the petitioner to make an application within a period of six weeks from today for payment of additional monetary benefit. If such application is filed, respondents shall examine the same with regard to entitlement of additional monetary benefit as per the scheme which is in vogue and decide the said application and communicate to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such application. 7. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ R.SUBHASH REDY, J. Date : 26-02-2009. skmr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20047 of 2000 Between: Smt. N.Laxmamma w/o. late Sreenivasulu R/o. Marchela Kalavakurthy(M), Mahaboobnagar. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad Region Hyderabad 2 The DepotManager, APSRTC, Dilsuknagar Depot Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS 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 an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner in the corporation on compassionate grounds is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in any suitable post in the corporation on compassionate grounds, and pass such further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following :