IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20973 of 1997 Between: Smt.K.Rama Devi, W/o.Late K.Subbarayudu, R/o.Cuddapah Town, Cuddapah District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, CUDDAPAH, Cuddapah District. 3 The Executive Director, A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. .....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 fully one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner to the post of Sweeper or on any other suitable post and to declare the Proceedings No.Dy.S(P)/E4/876(66)97-RMC dated 17-4--1998 of the 2nd respondent as illegal, improper, arbitrary and unjust and further directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Sweeper with immediate effect under 2nd respondent's region in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondents : SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : ORDER : Initially this writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondents in not appointing the petitioner as Sweeper on compassionate ground in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation service as illegal. But however, pursuant to the rejection orders passed in Proceedings No.Dy.S(P)/E4/876(66)97-RMCB, dated 17.04.1998, rejecting her representation for compassionate appointment, the said order was also questioned. 2. The husband of the petitioner Sri K. Subbarayudu was in the service of the Corporation, working as a Man- Mazdoor and he was attached to the Executive Director’s office, Kadapa. He died while in service on 10.03.1996. After the demise of her husband, the petitioner has made a representation, seeking appointment as Sweeper in APSRTC by relying on certain circular instructions in the scheme for compassionate appointment. The request of the petitioner was turned down stating that the petitioner has studied only up to 5th Class and as such, she is not eligible to be appointed to the post of Conductor, and so far as other posts are concerned, in view of the ban imposed on recruitment to the posts of Sweepers etc., no benefit of compassionate appointment can be extended to her. 3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation. 4. In this writ petition, it is stated that though the petitioner was deprived of the appointment on compassionate ground, in the similar situation, benefit of compassionate appointment was extended to one Smt.Nazeemunnisa, appointing her as a Cleaner. 5. A Division Bench of this Court, in the case of APSRTC v. Valluru Venkata Narayana[1], has considered the scope of the Bread-Winner Scheme notified by APSRTC in the light of the stand taken by the Corporation about imposing ban on recruitments, and held that in view of such ban, no direction can be given for appointment on compassionate grounds. Even in the present case, from the counter affidavit, it is clear that the petitioner was not qualified to hold the post of Conductor and it is categorically stated that there is a ban on recruitment to the post of Sweeper, etc. Though the petitioner pleads discrimination based on Proceedings No.Dy.S(P)/E4/876(12)/97-RM 'c', dated 25.03.1998, whereby one Smt.Nazeemunnisa was appointed on compassionate grouinds as a Cleaner, but however, it is not clear as to on what basis such appointment was made. In view of the stand taken by the respondents that there is a ban on recruitment to the posts of Sweeper, Cleaner etc., for which, the petitioner is qualified to be appointed, in view of the judgment of this Court referred to above, petitioner is not entitled for any directions for appointment on compassionate basis. 6. However, in the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioner is eligible for additional monetary benefit in lieu of compassionate appointment and that the Corporation is ready to extend the additional monetary benefit to her and the said fact was also informed to her by proceedings dated 17.04.1998. In that view of the matter, I keep it open to the petitioner to make a representation for extension of additional monetary benefit, and if such an application is filed, the respondents shall consider the entitlement and eligibility and take necessary steps for payment of the amount for which the petitioner is eligible, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 21st January 2009. ajr [1] 2008 (3) ALT 5 (DB)