IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7805 of 2000 Between: K.Daniel Suvarna Babu, S/o.K.Aseervadam, Hindu R/o. Kodiparru Village, Penumarru Post, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager, Guntur Region, A.P.S.R.T.C., Guntur. 2 The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. .....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 in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, by calling for the records relating to the proceedings No. P2/785(04)P2/99-RM(G), dated 1-10-99, and set aside the same and consequently direction the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Conductor or the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Conductor or any other post, with all consequential benefits, as otherwise the petitioner will be put to heavy and irreparable loss. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.GOVATHOTI BHASKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents : C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7805 of 2000 ORAL ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order, dated 01-10-1999, in proceedings No.P2/785(04)/99-RM(G), passed by the Regional Manager, Guntur, of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity “the Corporation”), rejecting the claim of the petitioner for providing appointment on compassionate grounds in the respondent Corporation. 2. The father of the petitioner, namely K. Aseervadam, was working as Conductor in the service of the Corporation. However, on the application filed by him, he was allowed to retire on medical grounds with effect from 25-07-1994. Earlier, the petitioner herein has filed a writ petition W.P.No.9753 of 1999 seeking directions to the Corporation to consider his case and appoint him as Conductor on compassionate grounds and this Court, by order, dated 09-08-1999, disposed of the said writ petition directing the Corporation to consider the application of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Circulars and the instructions governing the situation. Pursuant to the said directions of this Court, the impugned order, dated 01-10-1999, is passed by the Corporation rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds on the ground that though there was a reservation of 10% vacancies of Conductors in direct recruitment in favour of the children of employees other than the children of deceased employees of the Corporation, however, the same was withdrawn. 3. Though no counter affidavit is filed by the Corporation, even as per the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the father of the petitioner died on 18-02-1998 i.e., after his retirement on medical grounds. Even as per the impugned proceedings, the father of the petitioner retired from service on medical grounds on his own application during his life time with effect from 25-07-1994. 4. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions to consider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is to be noted that the scheme, namely “Bread Winner Scheme”, provides appointment only to the dependents of the employees, who died while they were in service. So far as the father of the petitioner is concerned, on his application, he was allowed to retire from service on medical grounds with effect from 25- 07-1994 and subsequently, he died on 18-02-1998. Inasmuch as the father of the petitioner died subsequent to his retirement on medical grounds, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. Even with regard to the earlier circulars providing 10% reservation, it is stated that the same had been withdrawn. As much as the petitioner is seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, unless his claim fits into the scheme governing the appointments on compassionate grounds, he is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. 5. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irrationality in the impugned orders, dated 01-10-1999, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. 6. For the foregoing, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 26-11-2008. Msr HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7805 of 2000 26-11-2008 Msr