IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1449 OF 2009 Dt.15.12.2009 Between: APSRTC, Rep. by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others … Appellant And N. Suguna … Respondent Counsel for the Appellants: Sri K. Madhava Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Sri S. Surendra Kumar THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1449 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) and its officers, who are respondents in Writ Petition No.306 of 2004, filed this Writ Appeal feeling partly aggrieved by order dt.3.9.2009 passed in the said Writ Petition. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The husband of the respondent died in harness in 1997 while working with the appellants. The son of the respondent was minor at that time. However, in the year 2000, when the appellants offered payment of additional monetary benefit to the respondent, the same was not received by the latter. In the year 2004, the respondent filed the above mentioned Writ Petition for providing compassionate appointment to her son. The learned Single Judge held, and in our view rightly, that the scheme of compassionate appointment was not applicable to the case of the respondent, as the husband of the respondent died as far back as the year 1997 and her request was rejected in the year 2000. As substantial time had passed from the death of the husband of the respondent, the learned Single Judge held that the family of the respondent will not entitle for compassionate appointment. The learned Single Judge, however, while rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment, directed the appellants to pay the additional monetary benefit of Rs.1,00,000/- as per the Circular, presently in force. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that at the time when the respondent was eligible to receive the additional monetary benefit, she was entitled to receive only Rs.66,837/- and that therefore the learned Single Judge committed an error in directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as per the Circulars in force as at present. Having considered the submissions, we are of the view that the direction given by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error. Admittedly, the respondent has not received the additional monetary benefit till today. Though the Corporation is stated to have offered additional monetary benefit in the year 2000, evidently the respondent has not received the same in the hope that her son may get employment on compassionate grounds. Since the amount which the respondent was entitled to receive immediately on the death of her husband in the year 1997 has not been received by her for nearly twelve years, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, as per the Circulars presently in force. In our view, the order of the learned Single Judge being just and proper, we do not find any reason to interfere with the said order. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Appeal, W.A.M.P. No.3017 of 2009, filed by the appellants – petitioners for interim relief, is dismissed. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15.12.2009 bnr