THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.A. No. 1472 of 2000 Judgment (per T Meena Kumari J) : This writ appeal was filed aggrieved against the order dated 7-8-2000 passed in W.P. No. 5709 of 2000 by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the learned Single Judge while holding that the legal heirs of the deceased employee are not entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds, but held that the petitioner is entitled to monetary package as per the scheme framed by the respondent and also directed the respondents to extend the monetary package as per the scheme within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The appellant herein is the writ petitioner and the respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petition. The writ petitioner filed the writ petition seeking a Mandamus to declare the impugned Proc. No.4186/B1/NR/94, dated 17-1-2000 as illegal, unjust and arbitrary and also a consequential direction to the respondents- A.P. Dairy Development Corporative Federation Limited, Hyderabad to provide employment to him on any suitable post on compassionate grounds. The brief facts that were urged before the learned Single Judge were as follows:- It is the case of the writ petitioner that his father joined the services of first respondent corporation on 1-6-1969 and he died in harness on 12-5-1999 leaving behind him the petitioner, his wife, another son and daughter as legal heirs. Later, on 24-7-1999 the wife of the deceased made a representation to the respondents requesting them to provide employment to his son-writ petitioner on compassionate grounds as he is a graduate and having computer diploma also. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that when the respondents refused to give any appointment and offered monetary benefit in lieu of employment, his mother made another representation dated 23-10-1999 requesting to provide employment to the petitioner. Later, the petitioner got issued a legal notice dt. 6-1-2000 requesting the respondents to consider his case, for which a reply was given by the second respondent dt. 17-1-2000 rejecting the case of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was forced to invoke the provisions of Article 226 of Constitution of India and prays for a Mandamus. The contention of the respondents- Federation before the learned Single Judge was that they have introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme to the regular staff during the years 1995-96 with special monetary package to the retired employees so also similarly in the case of compassionate appointments, the Management of the respondent had taken a decision to provide monetary package as one time settlement in lieu of compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased employee by giving cut off date as 26-4-1995 and that the scheme came into force from 26-5-1995 itself. On hearing both sides and upon considering the material available on record, the learned Single Judge observed that neither the petitioner nor any of the legal heirs of the deceased employee are entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds and that the petitioner is , however, entitled to monetary package as per the scheme framed by the respondent and therefore directed the respondents to extend the monetary package as per the scheme and pay the same to the legal representatives of the deceased employee within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Aggrieved against the said order, the writ petitioner preferred the present writ appeal. Heard both sides. Learned counsel for the respondents-Federation relied upon a decision reported between APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others v., Sarvarunnisa Begum[1], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the case on a claim for, by widow of employee dying in harness, additional monetary benefit given to widow apart from benefits available to her in lieu of her not claiming any employment in appellant-Corporation, held that as a matter of right, an employee was not entitled to claim compassionate appointment and that too when it has been brought to notice of court that no vacancy available where respondent could have been accommodated by giving her compassionate appointment. In the instant case also the Federation has formulated a scheme giving monetary benefit to the legal heirs of deceased employees. Following the law laid down by the Apex Court in 2008 (3) ALD 138 (SC), the writ appeal has no merits and deserves no consideration. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ T MEENA KUMARI J ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN J Dated: 25-06-2008 kvrk 190 THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.A. No. 1472 of 2008 (Judgment of the Division Bench made by Hon’ble Smt. Justice T Meena Kumari) 25th June 2008 [1] 2008(3) ALD 138 (SC)