IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26001 of 1999 Between: D.Abdul Khadar S/o. Late D.Rasul Sahee R/o. H.No. 28-714-A Yekalyanagar Noonepalli Village Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.Transco Rep by its Chairman & Managing Director Vidyut Soudha Somajiguda, Hyderabad 2 The Additional Secretary A.P.Transco,Vidyut Soudha Somajiguda Hyderabad 3 The Superintending Engineer, ( Operations) A.P.Transco, Kurnool, Kurnool District 4 The Divisional Electrical Engineer, (Operations), Nandyal, Kurnool District. .....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 an order or direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner case for compassionate appointment through his impugned Memo.No. DC(Estt)AS/(Pens)/PO-V(R.D)/1/715/99, dt. 6.10.99 as illegal, arbitrary, against the judgment of this Hon'ble Court Writ Petition No. 26187/95 by its order dt. 22.4.96 and violative of Article 14,16,21 of constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the Petitioner in a suitable post on compassionate grounds forthwith by set aside the above stated impugned Memo Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 06-10-1999 passed by the 2nd respondent in memo No. DS (Estt)/AP (Pens)/PO-V(R.D)/1/715/99 whereunder his claim for appointment to a suitable post on compassionate grounds was rejected. The brother of the petitioner by name D. Mahaboob Basha was working as Lower Division Clerk in the 1st respondent AP Transco in its circle in Kurnool. He died while he was in service on 08-10-1998. Subsequently, on the ground that there was no other breadwinner in the family, the petitioner claiming to be the brother of the deceased sought for employment on compassionate grounds. His claim was rejected mainly on the ground that there is no provision for providing employment to the brother of the deceased employee on compassionate grounds as per the policy notified by the AP Transco in B.P Ms.No. 119, dated 10-02-1982. Heard Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.R. Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is contended by Sri Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner that no independent policy is notified by the respondent – Company for making compassionate appointments and it has decided to adopt the policy notified by the Government. It is submitted that though there was no provision for appointment of brother of an employee on compassionate grounds initially, but the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No. 612, dated 30-10-1991, extending the benefit of employment to the brother and sister of the deceased who remained unmarried for appointment under the scheme. It is submitted that though such an order is issued by the Government, the respondent – Company adopted the same partially by extending the benefit to the adopted son or daughter of the deceased only but not to the brother and sister of the deceased. It is submitted that in view of the decision of the respondents to adopt the policy of the Government and in view of the benefit extended by the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 612, dated 30-10-1991, the petitioner is eligible for consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court dated 22-04-1996 passed in Writ Petition No. 26187 of 1995. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri P.R. Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel that as per B.P.Ms.No. 119, dated 10-02- 1982, the brother of a deceased employee is not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is further submitted that though the Government has issued orders in G.O.Ms. No. 612, dated 30-10-1991 extending the benefit to the younger brother and sister of the deceased employee who remained unmarried, the same is not being adopted by the respondent – Company. As such, he submitted that the petitioner is not eligible and fit into the scheme, which is in operation of the respondent – Company for extending the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds. Now, the law is well settled. If any appointment is sought for on compassionate grounds, the applicant must fit into the scheme notified by the employer. Though this Court, earlier, in Writ Petition No. 26187 of 1995 relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, issued a direction to consider the case of the petitioner therein, but in State Bank of India v. Somvir Singh[1], the Supreme Court has held that the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds is to be considered within the frame work of the scheme and the dependant has no special or additional claim or right to appointment on compassionate grounds. In view of the stand taken by the respondents that as per the scheme, the brother of the deceased employee is not eligible for appointment, I do not find any illegality in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Whether the brother of the deceased employee to be included as a dependant to extend the benefit on compassionate appointment is a matter within the frame work of the policy of the employer. In the absence of any such benefit notified by the employer for making appointment on compassionate grounds, the petitioner as a matter of right cannot seek any direction by way of mandamus from this Court to consider his claim for appointment when his claim is outside the scheme. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 17-03-2009 ks [1] 2007 (4) SCC 778