THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZUL PURKAR W.A.No.617/2001 Date of Order: 05-03-2010 Between: 1. APSRTC represented by its Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad and another. ..Appellants And Smt. M. Ramakrishnamma. ..Respondent The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZUL PURKAR W.A.No.617/2001 Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice VILAS V. AFZUL PURKAR) This appeal by A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad is directed against the orders of the learned single Judge allowing WP No.3327/2000 by order dt. 7-12-2000. The respondent had approached this court in the aforesaid writ petition questioning the action of the appellants in rejecting her claim for appointment on compassionate grounds. In the said writ petition, the respondent herein had relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in similar set of facts in APSRTC, IMBLIBAN, HYDERABAD V. ABIDHA KHANAM[1] and contended that the fact situation in the present case is similar and a direction deserves to be issued to the appellants to consider the case of the respondent (writ petitioner) for compassionate appointment for the post of Sweeper or Attender, as expeditiously as possible. The learned single Judge, accordingly, granted the said direction. Questioning the same, the present writ appeal is filed. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants- Corporation. Learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, on 30-9-2008, represented that the party has taken away the bundle and he has no instructions in the matter. We, accordingly, ordered notice to the respondent-writ petitioner. The Registry, accordingly issued notice. The said notice has been duly acknowledged by the respondent-writ petitioner. There was no representation on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioner though this appeal was listed for hearing before us on 16-2-2010 as well as on 17-2- 2010. Even to-day, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel has brought to our notice the decision of the Supreme Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. V. KAISER BEGUM[2], wherein the Supreme Court considered the similar question and was of the view that directions contrary to the existing scheme of providing appointments on compassionate grounds could not have been issued by the High Court. The Supreme Court, therefore, directed that in the absence of any scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds, additional monetary compensation as offered by the APSRTC shall be payable to the legal heirs of the deceased-employee. The said view was also reiterated in another decision of the Division Bench of this court in APSRTC, HYDERABAD AND OTHERSV. VALLURU VENKATA NARAYANA[3], wherein this court followed another earlier direction of the Supreme Court in UMESH KUMAR NAGPAL V. STATE OF HARYANA[4], and while setting aside the orders of the learned single Judge directing grant of compassionate appointment, substituted the same by giving a direction that the legal heirs may be given ex-gratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment. Even one more decision of the Supreme Court is available, in V.DINESH REDDY AND ANOTHER V. B.UDAYA KUMAR[5], whereunder the Honourable Supreme Court had reiterated the earlier directions referred to above and held that in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds, the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to additional monetary benefit. Following the aforesaid decisions, the direction to give appointment on compassionate grounds issued by the learned single Judge in the impugned order shall stand modified and in lieu of the same, the appellants shall extend and pay the benefit of additional monetary compensation to the respondent-writ petitioner herein. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. ____________​__________ VILAS V AFZUL PURKAR, J. 05-03-2010 KMR [1] 2000(4) ALD 435 (DB) [2] AIR 1998 SC 3213 [3] 2008(3) ALD 511 (DB) [4] (1994) 4 SCC 138 [5] Unreported order dt.7-12-2007 in Civil Appeal No.5770/2007