IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 20550 of 2000 Between: Smt.K.Meerabai, W/o.late Sri P.Kanikanna, C/o.Padmanabham, H.No.19/124, Asafgrammam, Tirumalgherry,Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Managing Director, A.P.State Road Transport Corpn., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, (HCR) A.P.State Road Transport Corpn., Secunderabad. .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings No.M1/684/(16) (4)/97-HCR, dated:6.1.1999 and proceedings No.M1/684(16) (4)/97-HCR, dated:29.8.2000 passed by the second respondent in rejecting the application of the petitioner for employment on compassionate grounds under the breed winner scheme as time barred and not entertainable is arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to law, contrary to the aims and objects of the compassionate appointment scheme and also in violation of article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to provide employment on compassionate grounds in any suitable post to the petitioner or to her son and to pass such other or further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.P.SRIDHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 20550 of 2000 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order dated 6th January 1999, passed in proceedings No.M1/684 (16)(4)/97-HCR, and also the order dated 29th August 2000, passed in proceedings No.M1/684 (16)(4)/97-HCR, by which, the claim of petitioner to extend the beneﬁt of employment on compassionate grounds, is rejected. 2. The husband of the petitioner by name Sri P.N.Kanikannan, was in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, working as a Routine Clerk at Secunderabad Depot. While in service, he died on 27th December 1988. Initially, the petitioner has submitted a representation on 14th January 1989, seeking appointment as an Attender, on compassionate grounds. But however, her claim was rejected mainly on the ground that there was no such scheme available for appointment of Attenders on compassionate grounds as per the scheme which was existing in the Corporation, and the petitioner was asked to claim additional monetary beneﬁt in lieu of employment, as she is entitled for such monetary beneﬁt. Though there was oﬀer for extending the additional monetary beneﬁt, but the petitioner was repeatedly making representations for appointment on compassionate grounds for some time to consider her case, and thereafter, to extend the beneﬁt of such appointment to her son. When the claim was made to extend the beneﬁt of appointment to her son, the respondents have rejected such claim as time-barred, and they have also informed that the request does not come under the scheme available. When further representations were made, the impugned proceedings dated 6th January 1999 and 29th August 2000 were issued, stating that the applications were time-barred. 3. It is not in dispute that as per the scheme, which was in operation in the Corporation to extend the beneﬁt of compassionate appointments, one has to make a request for such appointment within a period of three years from the date of death of the employee. In the instant case, the husband of the petitioner had died as early as on 27.12.1988. Initially, when the petitioner has made a representation on 14.01.1989 seeking to extend the beneﬁt of appointment as Attender on compassionate grounds, she was informed that she was not entitled for such appointment because, there was no provision for such appointment under the scheme. Thereafter, the petitioner has made representations nearly after ten years, to extend the beneﬁt of compassionate appointment to her son. Then the said claim was also rejected on the ground that her claim was time-barred. 4. Now, it is well settled that the claims for appointments on compassionate grounds are to be considered within the framework of the scheme framed by the organization. When there is no post of Attender for making appointment on compassionate grounds, the respondents have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner for such appointment. Her subsequent representations were also rejected on the ground that the same were time-barred. It is to be noticed that the husband of the petitioner had died as early as on 27.12.1988 i.e. about twenty years back and therefore, no direction can be given at this point of time for appointment of petitioner on compassionate grounds. Such schemes are mainly intended to rescue the members of the bereaved family in the event of sudden demise of an employee while in service. When the claim of the petitioner was not ﬁtting into the scheme, no direction can be given by this Court after this length of time for extending the beneﬁt of appointment on compassionate grounds. Further, it is to be noticed that even as per the counter aﬃdavit, it is speciﬁcally averred that the petitioner is entitled to additional monetary beneﬁt in lieu of employment on compassionate grounds, and the respondents themselves have asked the petitioner to make such claim. 5. In that view of the matter, I dispose of the writ petition, permitting the petitioner to make a fresh application claiming additional monetary beneﬁt, and if any such application is ﬁled, the respondents shall consider it as per her entitlement and extend the beneﬁt of additional monetary beneﬁt within a maximum period of two months from the date of ﬁling of such application. 6. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 13th October 2008 ajr