ORDER A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.—The Petitioner claims to be a registered association formed for protecting the interests and welfare of Class-3 and Class-4 employees of the Bangalore City Municipal Corporation. The writ petition is filed as a public interest litigation. 2. On December 29, 1994 the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Welfare, New Delhi addressed a letter to the Social Welfare Department, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore asking the department to ensure that the benefits extended under the Scheme for Liberation and Rehabilitation of Scavengers and their dependents, actually reached them. Acting on the said letter the Government formed a committee vide Annexure-B to implement the said scheme. On the recommendation of the Committee, the Commissioner Bangalore City Corporation called for applications from eligible Scavangers and their dependents and on receipt of the said applications forwarded them to the Executive Director, Bangalore City (Rural) District Central Co-operative Bank, Bangalore on 8.5.1995 with a request to grant them aid under the scheme. However, in the meeting held on 22.7.1995 the Committee decided to take back all 4189 applications submitted to the B.D.C.C. Bank since the Committee felt that it would be unfair to burden the bank with so many applications. The D.C.C. Bank was asked to extend financial assistance to only 500 beneficiaries and to return the remaining applications to the SC and ST Corporation for scrutiny. The Bank acting on such direction adopted the scheme, under Annexure-D, only with respect to 500 beneficiaries by admitting them as associate members of the Bank. The Petitioner-association being aggrieved by the non-extension of the Scheme to the other applicants has filed the present petition in public interest calling in question the decision taken under Annexure-D. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri N.K. Ramesh, Additional Government Advocate for Respondents 1, 4 and 5 as also Mr. B.R. Ramakrishna for Respondent No. 3. 4. The association represents only a certain class of people in the society. A public interest petition can be maintained by public spirited citizens or associations formed to protect the interest of the hapless members of the society. The members of the Petitioner-association are all well-emploand draw decent salaries. That they have formed an association of their own to fight for their rights, itself, is a clear indication of their wherewithal and status in society. The members of the Petitioner-association are all well-emploand draw decent salaries. That they have formed an association of their own to fight for their rights, itself, is a clear indication of their wherewithal and status in society. The right to receive the benefit arising under the scheme is in the nature of an individual right and not a collective one which can be claimed in a public interest litigation. They cannot be equated to a group of persons who are hapless and totally incapable of maintaining an action in their individual capacity. Therefore, the petition filed styling it as public interest litigation is totally misconceived. 5. That apart, the Scheme itself was meant for Liberation and Rehabilitation of Scavengers and their dependents with a view to abolish the abnoxious and inhuman practice of manual handling of night soil and filth and to settle them in dignified occupations by providing training and package of financial assistance. The Petitioners who are all employees of the Bangalore City Corporation earning decent salaries cannot qualify for the benefits under the Scheme. As employees of the Bangalore City Corporation they are not expected to carry night soil on their heads. It is not even their case that they are condemned to earn their livelihood by carrying night soil. By its very nomenclature viz. National Scheme of Liberation and Rehabilitation of Scavengers, the Scheme would exclude the Petitioners from its ambit as the members of the Petitioner-association are well-employed and receive good salary as Corporation employees. Surely, they or their dependents are not in need of liberation or rehabilitation. Though Annexure-A makes a reference to enclosing of the copies of the scheme and draws attention to para 4(i) of the booklet which lists out persons eligible to be covered under the Scheme, the Petitioner-association has not thought it fit to produce the same along with Annexure-A. We are convinced that the members of the association are not entitled to the benefits under the Scheme. The petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. 6. In the result, for the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the petition and it is, accordingly dismissed.