IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7952 of 2000 Between: Smt. K. Komuramma, W/o. late K. Mallaiah, aged about 45 years, Occ: household, R/o. Chandapalli village, Peddapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District. … Petitioner And The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. … Respondent Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order of direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the impugned action of the respondent in not considering the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Art.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India besides violative of principles of natural justice and further may be pleased to direct the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. J. Ashivini Kumar Counsel for the respondent: Smt. P. Rajani Reddy The court made the following Order: Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not considering her case for appointment on compassionate grounds as illegal and arbitrary and a consequential direction to the respondent to consider her case for appointment in a suitable post. 2. The husband of the petitioner, late Sri K. Mallaiah, was appointed as driver in Godavarikhani Depot, APSRTC, Karimnagar District on 30-12-1997 and his services were regularized with effect from 09-03-1989. He died on 07-03-1995 while in service. It is stated that there were some disputes with regard to receiving terminal benefits, provident fund amount etc., and ultimately the said amounts were paid to the petitioner as well as one Sri K. Rajesham, who is the son of the deceased through his first wife. The grievance of the petitioner is that as much as her husband died while he was in service, she is entitled for appointment in a suitable post on compassionate grounds. 3. The Law Officer of APSRTC has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent, stating that petitioner is not eligible to be appointed as conductor or shramik and in view of the ban imposed by the Government, no other post is being filled up on compassionate grounds in the corporation. It is further stated that the petitioner was advised to submit an application seeking additional monetary benefit in lieu of appointment, on compassionate grounds, since she is not eligible for the post of conductor or shramik, but for the reasons best known to her, she did not approach the authorities concerned. 4. When it is stated by the respondent in the counter affidavit that as there is a ban on recruitment in the corporation on compassionate grounds except, for the posts of conductor and shramik and that the petitioner is not eligible to be appointed in the said posts, no direction as sought for can be issued. Moreover, a Division Bench of this court, in the case of A.P.S.R.T.C., v. Valluru Venkata Narayana and another[1] held as under: “It is pertinent to note that in the instance case, there is no policy with regard to giving appointment on compassionate ground at all. As stated hereinabove, the said policy has been dispensed with and now it has been decided to make some ex-gratia payment in lieu of giving compassionate appointment because the appellant corporation is not financially sound and there might be overstaffing which would make the financial condition of the appellant corporation worse if it is saddled with new appointments even if they are not required. Even if some appointments are to be made, the High Court cannot constrain the appellant employer to give appointment on compassionate ground especially when there is no policy with regard to giving such appointment.” 5. As much as it is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was advised to avail the additional monetary benefit in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds and she did not avail the same, I permit the petitioner to submit an application afresh to the respondent seeking grant of additional monetary benefit, in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds, within a period of four weeks from today. If any such application is submitted by the petitioner, the respondent shall examine her entitlement for the monetary benefits as per the said beneficial scheme by passing appropriate orders within a period of six weeks form the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. 6. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. February 18, 2009 MRR [1] 2008 (3) ALT 5 (D.B.)