THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NOS.7104 AND 7105 OF 2005 COMMON ORDER Heard both the counsel. 2. The petitioners in these two writ petitions are the spouses of the casual labour who died in the accident occurred on 23.2.2004 at Splid Propellant Space Booster (SPROB) Plant in the respondent – organization i.e., Satish Dhavan Space Centre SHAR, Department of Space, Indian Space Research Organization, Sriharikota, Nellore District. In the said accident, the employees of the respondent – Department also died. The petitioners, filed the present writ petitions claiming ex gratia and other benefits viz., compassionate appointment to the dependants, providing official accommodation, scholarships to the children of the deceased employees etc., on par with the permanent employees of the Department. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in PURSHOTTAM LAL v. UNION OF INDIA[1] and submitted that denial of ex gratia and other benefits, which are extended to the permanent employees, to the petitioners, would amount to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioners are only the casual labour engaged by the respondent – Department to attend certain sundry works and no doubt they died during the course of employment. The regular employees of the respondent – Department who died in the said accident, were paid ex gratia as per the Liberalized Scheme of Payment of Ex-Gratia Lumpsum Compensation to Families of Central Government Civilian Employees, who dies in harness, introduced vide Government of India Department of Pension and P.W.O.M. No.45/55/97-P & PW © dated 11.9.1998, which is applicable to all the Central Government servants uniformly throughout India. As per the counter affidavit, the said scheme is not applicable to the casual labour and the petitioners could not point out any scheme, which is applicable to the casual labour in payment of ex gratia on par with the permanent Central Government employees. Further, from the material on record, the respondents paid an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- as financial assistant to the families of the deceased casual labour who died in the accident. Apart from that the petitioners also filed claims under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and accordingly they were granted compensation as per the provisions of the Act and the same was also confirmed by this court in the connected C.M.A.Nos.468 and 469 of 2007 dated 30.04.2010. It is to be noticed that the dependants of the casual labour who died in the accident, cannot claim equality with all the benefits extended to the dependants of the regular employees of the Department, since such benefits were extended because of the service conditions. 4. In the judgment relied on by the counsel for the petitioners the facts reveal that the employees who sought similar pay scale equivalent to a particular category employees, were Government servants, but in the present facts, the similarity is sought between the casual labour and the permanent employees of the organization. Hence, the said judgment of the Apex Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 5. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petitions and they are dismissed. No costs. AVS ------------------------- 01—06—2010 [1] AIR 1973 SC 1088