IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD SATURDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 6400 of 1999 Between: J.V.B.Ramavadhanulu S/o J.L.Narsimha Nidadavole, West Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Coporation, Rep.by its Manging Director Musheerabad, Hyderabad 2 Depot Manger, APSRTC, Nidadavole, West Godavari District .....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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction declaring the Proceedings of the 2nd Respondents No.01/785(1)/98-NDD dt 28-1-99 as illegal arbitrary etc., with a consequential direction to the respondent to provide employment to the Petitioner in any suitable post in APSRTC on compassionate grounds and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstance of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.V.V.L.N.SARMA Counsel for the Respondents: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 6400 of 1999 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order dated 28th January 1999, passed by the Depot Manager, Nidadavole, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment in a suitable post, on compassionate ground. 2. One Sri J.L.S.Murthy, was working as an Assistant Manager (Material) in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), Nidadavole Depot. He died while he was in service on 14.10.1994. The petitioner has made a request for appointment on compassionate ground in view of availability of such scheme for appointments in the Corporation service. When his claim was not considered, he approached this Court by ﬁling writ petition No.31164 of 1998, wherein, this Court has directed the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, provided he is eligible for such appointment, and further provided that an application is ﬁled within the time frame as per the scheme. 3. In the order impugned in this writ petition, the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, was rejected by the respondents mainly on the ground that the application was not ﬁled within the three years period as contemplated in the scheme. One more ground mentioned for rejection of petitioner’s claim was that he was the adopted son of the deceased employee, and therefore, was not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. 4. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that he has made a representation on 02.11.1994, seeking appointment on compassionate ground, and therefore, the said representation was very much within the time stipulated. It is further submitted that as much as he was adopted by the deceased employee through a registered adoption deed, there is no reason in rejecting his claim on the ground that he was the adopted son. 5. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondents, while denying the allegations of the petitioner in general, it is categorically stated that the petitioner has not submitted any representation on 02.11.1994, as alleged by him, but he has submitted the application on 28.05.1998, requesting to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground. Further, it is stated that asmuch as the petitioner was the adopted son of the deceased employee, he is not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground, as per the scheme provided for such appointments. 6. With regard to appointment on compassionate grounds, it is well settled that the right of such claim is to be considered within the framework of the scheme framed for such purpose. When three years period is prescribed in the scheme for submitting the application for appointment on compassionate ground, by making an application beyond such period, the petitioner cannot claim any appointment. Further, though it is alleged that the petitioner has made an application on 02.11.1994, but in the counter aﬃdavit, it is categorically stated by the respondents that they have not received any such application as alleged by the petitioner, and there is also no rejoinder to such averments made in the counter affidavit. 7. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has produced the circular instructions, dated 5th of May 2000, issued in Circular No.PD- 30/2000, in which, the Corporation has clariﬁed that the adopted sons and sons-in-law of the deceased employees are not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds in APSRTC. Since the adopted sons are not eligible for appointment as per the scheme, the petitioner cannot make such claim as a matter of right, contrary to the conditions of the scheme. In any event, it is to be noted that the very object of the scheme is to mitigate the hardships of the family members of the employees, who die in harness. But, in the present case, the employee had died on 14.10.1994, and therefore, after this long time, no direction can be given for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 6th September 2008 ajr. To 1 The Manging Director, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Coporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad 2 The Depot Manger, APSRTC, Nidadavole, West Godavari District