R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus, to issue directions to the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner herein on compassionate grounds, by setting aside the order of rejection passed by the respondents. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that his late father was working as driver in the respondent organization, and he died on 4-5-2000 while he was in service. As such, it is his case that, earlier his mother made representation requesting for appointment on compassionate grounds either for herself or for her eligible children and the same was rejected on 5-2-2001. Thereafter the petitioner, who is the eldest son, has also made representation, pursuant to which, the impugned rejection orders are passed on 11-9-2001. Even thereafter, a legal notice was issued on behalf of the petitioner to the respondents and the same was duly replied by recording reasons by proceedings dated 31-10-2002. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have rejected his claim only on the ground that the cause of death of his late father is not attributable to the condition of work performed by him. It is his case that as his late father was in service at the time of death; as such he is entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds and the reasons for refusal are not valid. It is the further case of the petitioner that one Smt. Padmavathi is given appointment on compassionate grounds, in similar circumstances; as such the action of the respondents is also discriminatory. ( 3 ) COUNTER affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents admitting that the petitioner s father worked as driver and he died on 4-5-2000. It is stated that there was request earlier, by the mother of the petitioner, and the same was rejected by proceedings dated 5-2-2001 and it was communicated vide letter 27-2-2001. Thereafter the petitioner made another representation and the same was also rejected by the second respondent through proceedings dated 12-9-2001. Further it is the case of the respondents that there is no scheme as such for compassionate appointment in the respondent-Corporation. Thereafter the petitioner made another representation and the same was also rejected by the second respondent through proceedings dated 12-9-2001. Further it is the case of the respondents that there is no scheme as such for compassionate appointment in the respondent-Corporation. But as a welfare measure, there was agreement between the Union and the Management to provide compassionate appointment to one of the dependant family member of the deceased employees, who died or permanently disabled as a result of accident while on duty only. It is further stated that the claim of the petitioner is not covered by such agreement for appointment, as such he is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Further it is stated that the respondent-Corporation has paid all the retirement benefits to the tune of Rs,4,08,309/- and is also paying family pension on monthly basis. Further with reference to the discrimination pleaded by the petitioner, it is categorically stated that the appointment of Smt. Padmavathi is not on compassionate grounds and she was recruited as Junior assistant (work charged category) when POWERGRID pension scheme was not enforced in the Corporation, based on the manpower requirement. It is further submitted that except the age criteria, she was not extended with any other relaxation in her recruitment. As such it is stated that there is no basis for the allegation of discrimination and the case of the petitioner cannot be compared with that of Smt. Padmavathi to seek benefit of compassionate appointment. In view of the same, it is submitted that there are absolutely no merits for seeking relief of compassionate appointment from this Court. As such, it is submitted that the writ petition is fit to be rejected. ( 4 ) BASED on the above pleadings, Sri J. Sudheer, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no reason for the respondents to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment only in cases of permanent disability or death as a result of accident while on duty only. He submits that it is not disputed that the petitioner s father was died while he was in service, as such, the petitioner is entitled for relief. He submits that it is not disputed that the petitioner s father was died while he was in service, as such, the petitioner is entitled for relief. Further it is submitted that in similar circumstances, one another candidate, by name Smt. Padmavathi is already given appointment and denial of the same benefit to the petitioner is discriminatory, arbitrary and is in violation of constitutional protection guaranteed under article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of RAMANA DAYARAM SHETTY Vs. THE INTERNATIONAL AIR PORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (reported in AIR 1979 SC 1628 ), and also the Judgment of the Supreme Court in case of KASTURI LAL LAKSHMI REDDY Vs. THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR ( reported in AIR 1980 SC 1992 ). ( 5 ) ON the other hand, Sri R. Raghunandan Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a matter of right, but, is only by way of exception to the constitutional mandate contained in Article 16 (2) of the Constitution of India. Further, he submits that the claim for compassionate appointment is to be tested within the scheme/settlement issued by the organization. He further submits that there is no scheme as such for compassionate appointment in the respondent-Corporation, but, however, as a welfare measure, the Corporation had entered into an agreement with the union and the Management agreed to provide employment on compassionate grounds, only in cases of death or permanent disability, as a result of accident only while on duty by the employee. In that view of the matter, he submits that there is no right for the petitioner to claim compassionate appointment, as a matter of right. With regard to discrimination pleaded by the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that no compassionate appointment is given to any other person as claimed by the petitioner and the petitioner can not compare with other candidate, by name, Smt. Padmavathi, who is recruited as per manpower requirement. He further submits that there is absolutely no basis for discrimination alleged so as to plead violation of Article 14 of the constitution of India. He further submits that there is absolutely no basis for discrimination alleged so as to plead violation of Article 14 of the constitution of India. ( 6 ) IN view of the above submissions, it is to be seen that the petitioner can not claim appointment on compassionate ground, as a matter of right. It is well settled principle that appointment on compassionate ground, is not a matter of any enforceable right. The scheme of compassionate appointment is a welfare measure, which varies from organization to organization, and it is in the nature of exception to Article 16 (2) of the Constitution of India. Even when a scheme is in operation for such appointment, the same is to be operated with limited rights within the sphere of the scheme. In the instant case, no scheme is in operation, but the respondent-management entered into an agreement with the union, which is drafted in the shape of Memorandum of Agreement and Clause 0. 5. 4 of the said Memorandum of Agreement reads as follows:" Employment to one dependent of each workman who is permanently disabled or dies as a result of accident while on duty, will continue to be provided as at present. Dependent for this purpose will mean spouse of the employee, his/her son or daughter or legally adopted son/daughter ( 7 ) AS per the said agreement, there is no obligation for the respondents to provide employment to the dependent of the workman merely he/she died while in service. As per the agreement, one dependent is eligible for employment only in case of permanent disability or death is caused as a result of accident, while on duty. The said benefit cannot be extended to normal deaths though the employee is in service. In that view of the matter, the petitioner s claim is not covered by the said clause in the agreement referred to above and in absence of any other scheme in operation for compassionate appointment, the petitioner cannot claim for appointment on compassionate grounds as a matter of right. Even with reference to further submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner with regard to discrimination among equals also has no force. Even with reference to further submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner with regard to discrimination among equals also has no force. First of all, the allegation that one another candidate, by name, Smt. Padmavathi is extended with the benefit of compassionate appointment, is denied by the respondents and it is categorically stated by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the appointment of said Smt. Padmavathi is in a recruitment, as per the requirement of manpower in a work charged establishment. As such, it is not open for the petitioner to compare his claim, with that of other candidate, recruited in the work charged establishment by name Smt. Padmavathi so as to plead discrimination. As such the petitioner cannot compare his case with other recruited candidate in the work charged establishment, which is made as per man power requirement, while claiming the relief of compassionate appointment. In view of the factual position in this case, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of RAMANA DAYARAM SHETTY Vs. THE international AIR PORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA (supra) is not helpfulto the plea of the petitioner. In the said judgment, the Apex Court has held that the State cannot actand arbitrarily enter into relationship, contractual or otherwise, with third party. Further it is held that, its action must confirm to some standard or norm, which is rational and non discriminatory. But, as much as, in this case, there is no factual basis to plead discrimination, the ratio decided by the Apex Court in the decision referred above, cannot support the case of the petitioner. Equally, the judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in KASTURI LAL lakshmi REDDY Vs. THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR (supra), the Apex Court has held that in grant of Largess, discretion of the Government is not unlimited. It also further held that the Government s action must satisfy the test of reasonableness and public interest. The ratio decided in the above referred case also is not helpful, to the case on hand having regard to the issue involved in this case. It also further held that the Government s action must satisfy the test of reasonableness and public interest. The ratio decided in the above referred case also is not helpful, to the case on hand having regard to the issue involved in this case. ( 8 ) IN view of the stand taken by the respondents, with regard to appointment of one Smt. Padmavathi, which is not a compassionate appointment, it can not be said that the respondents have acted illegally, arbitrarily and in violation of the constitutional mandate under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, as the petitioner failed to establish the factual foundation to plead discrimination, he is not entitled for the relief sought for on this ground also. As no other ground is urged and for the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition fails. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.