JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri T. Janardhan Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Smt. K. Sarala Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. The respondents 3 to 5 remained exparte, despite service of notice. 2. One Madhusdhan Rao was a driver employed in the APSRTC. He died on 10-12-2004. The first petitioner is his first wife and petitioners 2 and 3 are children through her. The third respondent is his second wife and respondents 4 and 5 are children through her. In this writ petition, the petitioners are aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents 1 and 2 in paying the pension and death benefits to them consequent upon the death of the aforesaid employee. 3. Since there is a dispute with regard to the legal heirs of the deceased employee to receive the service benefits, the respondents 3 to 5 filed SOP No. 9 of 2007 in the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, for succession certificate. The OP was decreed on 2-3-2010. Certificate was issued in favour of respondents 3 to 5 with a direction that the respondents 4 and 5 herein on the one side and the petitioner herein on the other, are entitled to the benefits in equal shares. Thus, each of them is declared to be entitled to 1/5th share. The decree has become final and as such, the respondents 1 and 2 are bound to pay the benefits as per their share. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2, the aforesaid facts are admitted. It is stated that the gratuity of Rs. 69,831/-was paid as per the Succession Certificate. Provident fund amount of Rs. 39,049/-, EDLF amount of Rs. 38,506/-, SBT amount of Rs. 1,03,451/-, SSB amount of Rs. 42,500/-are due and the same will be paid as per the shares. The counter further states that the said amounts were not paid since the claim forms have not been filed by the petitioners. If that be the case, there should be no objection if the petitioners are permitted to submit the claim forms and on such filing, to make payments in their favour. 5. The petitioners state that one of them is entitled for a job on compassionate grounds. If that be the case, there should be no objection if the petitioners are permitted to submit the claim forms and on such filing, to make payments in their favour. 5. The petitioners state that one of them is entitled for a job on compassionate grounds. According to the petitioners, an application in that regard was filed on 18-06-2010 and no action has been taken on it. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, however, submits that no such application has been filed. Be that as it may, there can be no objection if the petitioners are permitted to file an application afresh. 6. The petitioners are, therefore, permitted to submit claim forms for service benefits and file an application for appointment to one of them on compassionate grounds. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider releasing the benefits to the petitioners as per their entitlement. It is further directed that application of the petitioners for compassionate appointment be considered in accordance with notification No.PD-04/13 dated 2-3-2013 issued by the Corporation read with G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 5-01-2013. 7. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, W.P.M.P. No. 43100 of 2011 is dismissed unnecessary.