THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 28089 of 2007 O R D E R: None appears for the writ petitioner and there is no representation also. Heard Sri C. Appayya Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the APSRTC’). This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the inaction of the respondents in providing employment under the ‘Bread Winner Scheme’ as illegal. It is pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the writ petitioner’s father, while working as a Driver with the APSRTC at its Palakonda Depot of Srikakulam District, died on 03.10.2003 leaving behind his family in harness. It is stated that at the time, the father of the writ petitioner died, he was less than 18 years of age and hence, he could not be considered for employment by the respondent Corporation. In those circumstances, the mother of the writ petitioner appears to have submitted a representation seeking appointment on compassionate basis under the ‘Bread Winner Scheme’. In response thereto, the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Palakonda informed her on 04.10.2007 to solicit additional monetary benefit instead of seeking for employment on compassionate basis. It is this order, which, in substance, is under attack in this Writ Petition. The writ petitioner has proceeded on a footing that not providing employment to the writ petitioner amounts to violation of a fundamental right guaranteed to him under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the State Government, through their Letter No. 2475/Tr.II(2)/2005, dated 05.03.2005 of the Transport, Roads & Buildings Department, directed the APSRTC not to make appointments without the prior approval of the State Government. It has also been stated that the State Government has not accepted the proposals of the Corporation for making appointments on compassionate basis in favour of spouses/children of their deceased employees under ‘Bread Winner Scheme’ and instead, the State Government advised the Corporation to put in place a scheme of sanctioning additional monetary benefits in lieu of employment to provide appropriate cushion and succor to the family members of the deceased employee. Accordingly, additional monetary benefits are now offered in lieu of employment on compassionate basis. It is, therefore, clear that the Corporation is bound by the policy formulations made by it and it cannot travel beyond the same. Seeking employment on compassionate basis cannot be construed as a fundamental right going by the very nature of such appointments. They are part of a scheme of benevolence, which the employers devise. The normal rule for employment in any public sector undertaking is by throwing it open to all people, who are eligible and qualified for soliciting such an employment. If the Corporation has revised its earlier scheme and has departed from its earlier scheme of providing for employment on compassionate grounds in favour of spouses/children of their deceased employee, the writ petitioner cannot make any grievance, without attacking the validity and sustainability or otherwise of such a scheme. There was no such pleading in the Writ Petition that the scheme of making available additional monetary benefits in lieu of employment is an unreasonable one. To my mind, what should be an appropriate social security measure to provide for a cushion and a feeling of security in the minds of the dependants of a deceased employee, depends upon various factors. The potential for employability is one such factor. The efficiency of the organization is the second factor and providing for a social security in the minds of the employees is another factor. Whether providing for additional monetary benefits would be an adequate measure of providing social security in the minds of the serving employees or not, is hardly a matter of debate in a constitutional Court. Based upon a realistic assessment of the relevant factors, if the employer puts in place a scheme of providing for additional monetary benefits to the depending members of the deceased employees, per se, such scheme cannot be characterized as an unfair or unreasonable or arbitrary scheme. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this Writ Petition and it is liable to be dismissed. However, it is needles for me to observe that in case the writ petitioner or his mother makes any such claim for payment of additional monetary benefits, the respondents would consider the same and accord the additional monetary benefits within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt of such an application. With this, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 17th June 2010 ksld