JUDGMENT : RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. 1. Heard Sri P. Gangarami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.M.R Balakrishna, representing Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 to 3. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order of rejection of his appointment on compassionate grounds by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings No. LC/876(3)/2018-RM(N) dated 07.09.2020 and has prayed for a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner to a suitable post basing on his qualification on compassionate ground. 3. The petitioner's father who was working as driver in the respondent-Corporation i.e. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (in short APSRTC), died on 25.04.2005 during service period. At that time, the petitioner was minor and attained the majority on 28.08.2006. In APSRTC for a period, with effect from 01.01.1998 to 31.03.2013, the recruitment on compassionate grounds were stopped and in lieu of employment, the “Bread Winner Scheme” (in short the Scheme) was operative by providing additional monitory benefits to the family of the deceased employee, which could be availed based on the willingness only, of the family of the deceased. 4. The petitioner's mother, applied for the additional monetary benefits under the scheme on 11.05.2005 in lieu of employment as the petitioner, her son, was not eligible. When the matter remained pending, she submitted another representation dated 28.07.2009 for additional monetary benefits under the scheme. The Corporation on consideration of representation, paid the additional monetary benefit of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 22.12.2009. All other eligible terminal and death benefits were also paid to the petitioner's mother. 5. After attaining majority and pursuant to the Circular No. W4/140(25)15-POI-AP dated 17.06.2016 the petitioner applied for his appointment on compassionate ground and the petitioner's mother represented before the respondents that she was ready to refund the additional monetary benefit which she received under the scheme. 6. Since the representation remained pending, the petitioner along with his mother filed Writ Petition No. 3483 of 2018 which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.12.2020 directing the respondents to consider and take decision on the said representation considering his case on humanitarian grounds and if possible to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner on refund of the additional monetary benefits by the mother of the petitioner. 7. Pursuant to the order dated 23.12.2020, the petitioner's representation was considered but was rejected by the impugned order dated 07.09.2020. 8. 7. Pursuant to the order dated 23.12.2020, the petitioner's representation was considered but was rejected by the impugned order dated 07.09.2020. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's mother did not opt for the additional monetary benefit under the scheme, voluntarily, but was forced to do so on the pretext that, otherwise her application shall be closed without any benefit, due to lapse of three years. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the circular dated 17.06.2016 it was mandatory for the respondents to provide employment and not providing the employment is contrary to the circular. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the circular dated 17.06.2016 pursuant to which the petitioner applied for his appointment is not applicable to the petitioner as the families of the deceased, who had availed the benefit of the scheme, are outside its purview. He further submits that the petitioner's mother had received the benefits in lieu of the employment under the scheme voluntarily. 11. I have considered the submissions advanced and perused the material on record. 12. The relevant part of the circular and guidelines dated 17.06.2016 of the A.P.S.R.T.C. which reads as under: “Besides, the change in the educational qualifications required in view of long ban period, it is proposed to invite applications afresh from the dependents of deceased employees who fulfill the revised eligibility criteria of pass in SSC or its equivalent examination and whose cases arose during the ban period for the post of Shramik as a onetime measure before 30.07.2016 as they might not have applied in view of the pre revised ITI (Diesel Mechanic) qualification required for Shramiks provided such families had not availed AMB and no other family member has already availed the said facility.” 13. A perusal of the circular and guidelines, shows that it was applicable to those families of the deceased who had not availed the additional monetary benefit under the scheme. The additional monetary benefit was provided to the families of the deceased at their will, in lieu of employment, considering the ban on such employment during specified period, if claim for such employment arose during that period. Admittedly, the petitioner's mother had availed the additional monetary benefit under the scheme. The additional monetary benefit was provided to the families of the deceased at their will, in lieu of employment, considering the ban on such employment during specified period, if claim for such employment arose during that period. Admittedly, the petitioner's mother had availed the additional monetary benefit under the scheme. Consequently, the petitioner was not entitled to apply pursuant to the circular dated 17.06.2016, which also did contain any provision for providing compassionate appointment after refund of the additional monetary benefit already received under the Bread Winner Scheme. 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Another vs. Shashank Goswami and Another, (2012) 11 SCC 307 reiterated that the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds is based on the premises that the applicant was dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly, such a claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. As a rule public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis and not to confer a status on the family. Thus, applicant cannot claim appointment in a particular class/group of post. Appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions. Where the scheme provides that in case the family of the deceased gets the retiral/terminal benefits exceeding a particular ceiling, the dependant of such deceased employee, would not be eligible for compassionate appointment. Paragraphs 9 to 13 and 16 of Shashank Goswami (supra) are being reproduced as under: “9. There can be no quarrel to the settled legal proposition that the claim for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premises that the applicant was dependent on the deceased employee. Paragraphs 9 to 13 and 16 of Shashank Goswami (supra) are being reproduced as under: “9. There can be no quarrel to the settled legal proposition that the claim for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premises that the applicant was dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly, such a claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 10. As a rule public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis and not to confer a status on the family. Thus, applicant cannot claim appointment in a particular class/group of post. Appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. 11. This Court in Govind Prakash Verma vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (2005) 10 SCC 289 while dealing with a similar issue i.e. whether payment of terminal/retiral benefits to the family can be taken into consideration, held as under: “In our view, it was wholly irrelevant for the departmental authorities.......to take into consideration the amount which was being paid as family pension to the widow of the deceased.......and other amounts paid on account of terminal benefits under the Rules.....Therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member of the family received the amount admissible under the Rules.” 12. This Court in Punjab National Bank and Others vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, (2004) 7 SCC 265 placing reliance upon the earlier judgment in General Manager (D&PB) and Others vs. Kunti Tiwari and Another, (2004) 7 SCC 271 held that compassionate appointment has to be made in accordance with the Rules, Regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. Whereas the scheme provides that in case the family of the deceased gets the retrial/ terminal benefits exceeding a particular ceiling, the dependant of such deceased employee, would not be eligible for compassionate appointment. 13. In Smt. Mumtaz YunusMulani vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384 this Court examined the scope of employment on compassionate ground in a similar scheme making the dependant of an employee ineligible for the post in case the family receives terminal/ retiral benefits above the sealing limit and held that the judgment in Govind Prakash (supra) had been decided without considering earlier judgments which were binding on the Bench. The Court further held that that the appointment has to be made considering the terms of the scheme and in case the scheme lays down a criterion that if the family of the deceased employee gets a particular amount as retiral/terminal benefits, dependent of the deceased employee would not be eligible for employment on compassionate grounds. 16. In view of the fact that, in the instant case the retiral/terminal benefits have been received by the family exceeding Rs. 3 lakhs, respondent No. 1 is not eligible to be considered for the Group ‘C’ post. In view of the above, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgments/orders stand set aside.” 15. In MGB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh, (2014) 13 SCC 583 the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the application has to be considered in accordance with scheme. In case the scheme does not create any legal right, a candidate cannot claim consideration of his case. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of MGB Gramin Bank (supra) are being reproduced as under: “12. A scheme containing an in pari materia clause, as is involved in this case was considered by this Court in State Bank of India and Another vs. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661 . Clause 14 of the said Scheme is verbatim to clause 14 of the scheme involved herein, which reads as under: “14. A scheme containing an in pari materia clause, as is involved in this case was considered by this Court in State Bank of India and Another vs. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661 . Clause 14 of the said Scheme is verbatim to clause 14 of the scheme involved herein, which reads as under: “14. Date of effect of the scheme and disposal of pending applications: The Scheme will come into force with effect from the date it is approved by the Board of Directors. Applications pending under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme as on the date on which this new Scheme is approved by the Board will be dealt with in accordance with Scheme for payment of ex-gratia lump sum amount provided they fulfill all the terms and conditions of this scheme.” 13. The Court considered various aspects of service jurisprudence and came to the conclusion that as the appointment on compassionate ground may not be claimed as a matter of right nor an applicant becomes entitled automatically for appointment, rather it depends on various other circumstances i.e. eligibility and financial conditions of the family, etc., the application has to be considered in accordance with the scheme. In case the Scheme does not create any legal right, a candidate cannot claim that his case is to be considered as per the Scheme existing on the date the cause of action had arisen i.e. death of the incumbent on the post. In State Bank of India and Another (supra), this Court held that in such a situation, the case under the new Scheme has to be considered.” 16. In the present case, the Additional Monetary benefit was received by the petitioner's mother and under the Circular dated 17.06.2016 such families of the deceased are not entitled for compassionate appointment. 17. In view of the aforesaid, the submission of the petitioner's counsel that there is violation of the circular, dated 17.06.2016 and the impugned order is contrary to the circular, cannot be sustained. 18. There is nothing on record to substantiate the plea of forced exercise to opt for the scheme. It is undisputed that the petitioner's mother firstly in 2006 and secondly in 2009 gave representations for the additional monetary benefits under the scheme. 18. There is nothing on record to substantiate the plea of forced exercise to opt for the scheme. It is undisputed that the petitioner's mother firstly in 2006 and secondly in 2009 gave representations for the additional monetary benefits under the scheme. Besides, this being a disputed question of fact cannot be gone into in the exercise of writ jurisdiction and that too after expiry of almost thirteen years from the date petitioner's mother received the additional monetary benefits under the scheme. 19. For all the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 20. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions if any pending shall stand closed.