HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.23561 OF 2004 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the monthly monetary compensation to the petitioner and also stoppage of the payment of pension with effect from October 2001, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to pay monthly monetary compensation with effect from 24-05-1993 and also pension with effect from October, 2001 duly granting all other consequential benefits. 2. It appears, while working as Center Boy in respondent No.1 company, Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Ramagundam-III Area, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District, husband of the petitioner Palli Balaswami died in harness on 24-05-1993. Thereafter, pension, gratuity and other benefits were paid, but monthly monetary compensation was not paid in lieu of compassionate appointment etc. It is also the case of the petitioner that though pension was paid, it was stopped from October, 2001. However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that so far as pension is concerned, it was restored and the petitioner is being paid regularly. 3. Heard Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, and Sri M. Ganga Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 4. Now the point that arises for determination in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to the monthly monetary compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment ? 5. The fact that no member of the family of the deceased Balaswami has been appointed on compassionate grounds is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that when no member of the family of the deceased is appointed on compassionate grounds, the widow or the spouse of the employee died in harness is entitled to monthly monetary compensation, however the same is not being paid by respondent No.1 Company to the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 strenuously contended that immediately after the death of the husband of the petitioner, petitioner introduced a person, who is purported to be her son-in-law, for the purpose of claiming employment and she claimed employment on compassionate grounds in favour of her purported son-in-law. However, the said claim was rejected on the ground that it was a stale claim and the application was not filed within the time and for other reasons as well. Therefore, now petitioner cannot turn around and claim monthly monetary compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment. The compassionate appointment claimed by the petitioner in favour of her purported son-in-law failed, and therefore, she has filed this petition, as such, she is not entitled to any monthly monetary compensation. 7. From the above discussion, the fact remains that petitioner was not paid monthly monetary compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment. Maybe, the poor lady claimed compassionate appointment in favour of her purported son-in-law, but the application for the same was dismissed not on the ground that he is not son-in-law of the petitioner but on the ground that he is not eligible and application is stale one since it was not made within the prescribed period for compassionate appointment. It appears, marriage of the daughter of the petitioner itself was after the death of her husband. Maybe, petitioner tried some how to get employment in favour of her son-in-law by way of some futile attempts, but that does not mean that she is not entitled to monthly monetary compensation. 8. The sine qua non is that no person of the family of the deceased employed on compassionate grounds is eligible for grant of monthly monetary compensation. In this case, admittedly no person from the family of the deceased Balaswmai was appointed on compassionate grounds. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be denied monthly monetary compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment. 9. Under the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondents to pay monthly monetary compensation to the petitioner as per her eligibility from the date of the death of her husband continuously without fail. No order as to costs. _____________________ C.V. RAMULU, J August 3, 2010. PV