DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, C. J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri O. Manohar Reddy for the petitioner and Smt. Bhaskara Lakshmi, standing Counsel for the High Court, for respondents. ( 2 ) THE first petitioner is the wife and the second petitioner is the son of one Y. Abdul sattar, who was working in the Judicial department. He died on 16-6-1998 in harness. After his demise, the first petitioner made an application to the District Judge, anantapur, requesting him to appoint the second petitioner on compassionate grounds as there are no earning members in the family and that he has passed SSC examination. At that time, the second petitioner was a minor. The then District judge issued proceedings dated 12-8-1998 to renew the application after the second petitioner becomes major. After the second petitioner attained majority, he submitted an application to the 2nd respondent herein requesting him to consider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds. The second respondent sought for clarification from the first respondent as to. whether the second petitioner could be appointed in the vacancies on compassionate grounds after relaxation of the Rules. The first respondent rejected the application for appointment on compassionate grounds and directed the second respondent to pay ex gratia of rs. 20,000/ -. In pursuance of the order issued by the first respondent, the second respondent issued proceedings in Dis. No. 250, dated 11-1-2002 sanctioning an amount of Rs. 20,000. 00 as ex gratia to the family members of the deceased who died in harness. According to the writ petitioner, the action of the first respondent and the consequential action of the second respondent in rejecting the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds is not legal and is arbitrary. ( 3 ) AT the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the second respondent having directed the first petitioner to make application after the second petitioner attained majority, he is estopped, by conduct, in denying the appointment on compassionate grounds on the ground that the application has been made after the period of two years. Therefore, again, it is submitted that the action of the respondents is not legal and is arbitrary. ( 4 ) THE writ petition was filed with the following prayer:". . . . . . . . . . . . . Therefore, again, it is submitted that the action of the respondents is not legal and is arbitrary. ( 4 ) THE writ petition was filed with the following prayer:". . . . . . . . . . . . . it is prayed that this honourable Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the order of the 1st respondent passed in Roc. No. 2375/2001 - Cl. (6) dated 21-12-2001 referred to in the order of the 2nd respondent in D. Dis No. 250, dated 11-1-2002 and the consequential order of the 2nd respondent passed in dis. No. 250 dated 11-1-2002 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to consider the claim of the 2nd petitioner for compassionate appointment and pass such other or further orders as the Honourable Court feels fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. "a counter-affidavit was filed by the respondents herein. We have perused the counter-affidavit and heard Smt. Bhaskara lakshmi. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the High court submitted that the Government in g. O. Ms. No. 612, General Administration (Ser. A) Department, dated: 30-10-1991 ordered that a minor who does not attain majority within two years as specified in the government Memo No. 618, Ser. A/78-11, general Administration Department, dt. 17-12-1979 after the demise of the deceased Government employee shall not be considered for appointment and in such cases, it is decided to grant ex gratia to the widow/dependent of the deceased employee as per the orders to be issued separately. Accordingly, in G. O. Ms. No. 59, General Administration (Ser. A) department, dt. 5-2-1993, orders were issued directing the concerned appointing authority to grant ex gratia to the widow/ dependent of the deceased employee in such cases. Our attention was also drawn to the memo No. 618/ser. A/78-ll, dt. 17-12-1979 issued by the Government of Andhra pradesh and other connected records. We have carefully perused and considered the same. ( 6 ) IN the instant case, the applicant s date of birth is 13-7-1983. The date of death of the employee is 16-6-1998. As per clarification issued by the Government in Memo no. 618/ser. A/78-ll, dt. 17-12-1979 issued by the Government of Andhra pradesh and other connected records. We have carefully perused and considered the same. ( 6 ) IN the instant case, the applicant s date of birth is 13-7-1983. The date of death of the employee is 16-6-1998. As per clarification issued by the Government in Memo no. 618/ser. A/78-ll, dated: 17-12-1979, in paras 12 and 13, the application for appointment has to be given within one year and appointment must be given within two years from the date of the death of the government Servant. There is no relaxation of age for minors in the above rules. In the present case, the date of death of the government servant is 16-6-1998 and the applicant must be provided with the job within two years from the date of the death i. e. , 16-6-1998. But, the applicant attained the majority only on 13-7-2001 i. e. , after the expiry of the period of two years. The first petitioner submitted another application dated 16-7-2001 requesting the second respondent to appoint her son, namely, 2nd petitioner on compassionate grounds, as he attained the age of majority. The 2nd respondent addressed the matter to the high Court and requested the High Court to relax the relevant rules to provide employment to the 2nd petitioner as he had not attained the age of majority within two years from the date of demise as contemplated in Memo No. 618/ser. A/78- 11, dated 17-12-1979. Pursuant to the same, the High Court considered the matter and rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and resolved to pay ex gratia as per G. O. Ms. No. 59, General administration (Ser. A) Department, dated 5-2-1993. Accordingly, this Court, through letter ROC No. 2373/2001-C1/6, dated 21-12-2001 informed the 2nd respondent to pay the ex gratia to the petitioner as per the said G. O. The second respondent through letter Dis. No. 1115, dated 4-4-2002 has stated that in obedience to the High Court s letter dated 21-12-2001, a D. D. for rs. 20,000/- has been drawn in favour of the first petitioner herein towards ex gratia granted by the High Court and that, however, the petitioner submitted a representation to the District Judge refusing to receive the ex gratia, stating that she filed a Writ Petition on the file of High Court, seeking appointment to her so. 20,000/- has been drawn in favour of the first petitioner herein towards ex gratia granted by the High Court and that, however, the petitioner submitted a representation to the District Judge refusing to receive the ex gratia, stating that she filed a Writ Petition on the file of High Court, seeking appointment to her so. n, and pending the same she is unable to receive the amount. ( 7 ) WE have already noticed the prayer, which is to quash the two proceedings. The first proceeding is dated 21-12-2001. The second proceeding is the order in D. Dis. No. 250, dated 11-1-2002 by which a sum of rs. 20,000/- was sanctioned as ex gratia to the family members, namely, widow and three minor sons of the deceased employee, who died on 16-6-1998 in harness. At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners again repeated that since the district Judge directed the first petitioner to make application after the second petitioner attains majority, the respondents are estopped, by conduct, in denying the appointment on compassionate grounds on the ground that the application has been made after the period of two years. We are unable to countenance or appreciate or accept the said contention. The said contention put forward by the learned counsel is against the decision of the honourable Supreme Court of India in sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar wherein the supreme Court held that there cannot be a reservation of vacancy till the dependent becomes major/eligible for appointment, if he is minor at that time, unless there is some special provision in that regard. We have already referred to the provision in this connection. The petitioners, in our opinion, are not entitled to invoke or shelter under the provisions of the Government orders. ( 8 ) THE learned Standing Counsel for high Court placed strong reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this High court reported in T. Venkatasubbamma v. A. P. C. C. A. D. B. Ltd. , to which, one of us (Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, C. J.) was a party, wherein it was held thus:"the law is well settled. The Supreme court in many cases has decided that the consideration for compassionate appointment is not a vested right and such right cannot be exercised at any time in future. AR. Lakshmanan, C. J.) was a party, wherein it was held thus:"the law is well settled. The Supreme court in many cases has decided that the consideration for compassionate appointment is not a vested right and such right cannot be exercised at any time in future. The object is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis and the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed and offered after long lapse of time and after the crisis is over. In our opinion, writ of mandamus cannot be claimed and issued contrary to what is provided in the rules. The dependents of the deceased employee do not stand to acquire any right of employment nor does any such right accrue to them by mere death of such Government servant and therefore, they cannot claim it as a matter of right. "we, therefore, hold that the writ petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this Writ petition and since the writ petitioner is also not willing to receive the sum of rs. 20,000/-, which was granted as ex gratia and sought to quash that order also, we have no other option, except to say that she will not be entitled for that payment also. The writ Petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.