IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 4001 of 2000 Between: B. Naresh Kumar, R/o. Jannapureddy Cari Palem, Pedagatla Pally Post, Ravulapalem, E.G. Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep by its V.C. & M.D., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Regional Manager, Rajahmundry Region, Rajahmundry, E.G. Dist. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 writ, order or directions directing the respondents herein to forthwith consider my case for any suitable post and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.GOVINDA RAJULU Counsel for the Respondent No.: C.PRAKASH REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking directions by way of mandamus to the respondents to forthwith consider the case of the petitioner for providing suitable employment in the respondent-Corporation on compassionate grounds. No representation on behalf of the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for respondents. Perused the material on record. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the father of the petitioner by name B.Nageswar Rao, who worked as Driver in the respondent-Corporation, died while in service on 19- 05-1994. It is submitted that the mother of the petitioner made an application on 08-09-1994 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Conductor in the scheme provided for compassionate appointments. It is further stated that though departmental selection committee considered some cases of the same nature, the case of the petitioner was not considered without valid reasons vide proceedings dated 06-07-1998. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondents, while admitting the death of the father of the petitioner while in service on 19-05-1994, it is stated that, as per the scheme available then, the application for appointment under compassionate grounds has to be made within a period of 3 years from the date of the death of an employee. While denying the allegation of the petitioner that an application was made on 08-09-1994 by the mother of the petitioner, it is stated that the said application was made on 28-02-1998. As the said application was not within 3 years period, as per the scheme available then, the same was not considered. It is also stated that the applicant was 17 years old as on 19-05-1997 by which date the period of 3 years comes to an end and for that reason also the selection committee did not consider the case of the petitioner. It is also stated that the minimum age eligibility for appointment to the post of Conductor was completion of 21 years and for that reason also the petitioner is not eligible for appointment to the post of Conductor. Though counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled as early as in June 2001, the averments therein are not disputed by ﬁling any reply aﬃdavit. It is well settled that in the scheme provided for appointments on compassionate grounds, the rights of applicant, if any, are to be adjudged within the framework of the scheme itself. Since the scheme provides entertainment of applications for a period of 3 years from the date of death of an employee, the petitioner, by making an application after expiry of the said period of 3 years, cannot seek any employment. Further, inasmuch as the eligibility for appointment to the post of Conductor is completion of 21 years, the petitioner is also not eligible to the post of Conductor on account of his underage. The very object of the said scheme is to provide employment to a member of the bereaved family as an immediate measure, as such, after a long lapse of time, no direction can be given to the respondents for appointment of the petitioner in any suitable post on compassionate grounds. However, if the mother of the petitioner is entitled to any additional monetary beneﬁt as per the scheme, it is open for her to make an application for grant of such additional monetary beneﬁt, but in view of the stand taken by the respondents no direction as sought for can be given after lapse of 14 years of death of an employee. The writ petition is, therefore, devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ---------------------------- R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 15th September 2008 CVRK