ORDER : 1. The present writ petition is filed seeking following relief: “......to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide No. E3/684(1)/15-RM:ADB, dated 13.07.2016 is illegal, arbitrary and void and consequently set aside the same and further direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the respondents corporation under breadwinner scheme and to pass....” 2. The brief facts leading to filing of present writ petition are as under. 3. The petitioner’s father was working as Driver in the respondent corporation vide E. No. 850374 and he expired due to heart attack on 20.06.1999, while he was in service in the respondent corporation. The petitioner’s mother applied for the post of conductor under breadwinner scheme on 29.05.2001. Later, on 28.05.2004, the addressed another letter to the respondent corporation to grant additional monetary benefits instead of providing job. The respondent corporation vide letter, dated 15.07.2013 sought response from the petitioner’s mother, whether she would opt for job or additional monetary benefits within five (05) days. The petitioner’s mother made an application on 25.07.2013 to respondent-corporation to appoint the petitioner under breadwinner scheme. The respondent-corporation sent a call letter, dated 16.09.2013 and informed petitioner’s mother to appear before the authority on 25.09.2013 at 10.00 am with all relevant documents. However, the petitioner’s mother was not in a position to join as conductor in the respondent corporation due to health problems. 4. The petitioner’s mother again made a representation on 09.04.2015 to respondent No. 3 to appoint the petitioner under breadwinner scheme in the respondent corporation. The respondents vide impugned proceedings No. E3/684(1)/15-RM:ADB, dated 13.07.2016 rejected the request of the petitioner’s mother for appointment of petitioner in the respondent corporation, however, it is informed that additional monetary benefits will be provided in lieu of the employment, since the petitioner was not eligible for employment under breadwinner scheme. 5. The petitioner stated that he is only male member in the family and educated and according to him, he is eligible for appointment under breadwinner scheme and there is no other male member in the family to support the family. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking direction to set-aside the impugned proceedings, dated 13.07.2016, consequently appoint the petitioner in the respondent corporation under the breadwinner scheme. 6. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking direction to set-aside the impugned proceedings, dated 13.07.2016, consequently appoint the petitioner in the respondent corporation under the breadwinner scheme. 6. The respondent corporation filed counter, denying the averments made in the writ petition. It is admitted fact that petitioner father was working as Driver in Adilabad depot of respondents corporation and had expired on 20.06.1999. The petitioner’s mother submitted an application, dated 29.08.2001 to provide employment to her under breadwinner scheme and her application was registered for providing employment under breadwinner scheme in Adilabad region. Subsequently, she submitted another application, dated 09.05.2015 with request to provide employment to her son under breadwinner scheme. 7. The respondent corporation given its reply, dated 26.05.2016 and informed petitioner’s mother that proposed family member shall fulfill eligibility criteria such as attaining the age of 18 years and possessing the educational qualification etc., within the stipulated period of 5 years from the date of death of the employee. In said letter, it is stated that age of the petitioner was only 7 years, 5 months as on the date of submission of application and even after taking into consideration of relaxation of 5 years from the date of death of employee, the petitioner was not eligible and therefore, advised petitioner’s mother to claim her additional monetary benefit in lieu of employment under breadwinner scheme. 8. The respondent corporation vide letter, dated 16.09.2013 informed petitioner’s mother to attend the interview along with original documents at RM’s Office on 25.09.2013 for her selection to the post of conductor under breadwinner scheme. Accordingly, she attended interview, however since she is under height, she was not considered for the said post, as her height was 142 cm against the required height of 146 cm after relaxation under breadwinner scheme. She was advised to claim for additional monetary benefits in lieu of employment under breadwinner scheme. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that due to health problems, petitioner’s mother did not join in the respondent corporation is factually incorrect. Insofar as, the petitioner is concerned for appointment as conductor even after giving relaxation of 5 years, the petitioner was only 15 years and 5 months old as against minimum age of 18 years and therefore, this application was not considered. 9. Heard Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Srinivas Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondents corporation. 10. 9. Heard Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Srinivas Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondents corporation. 10. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that non consideration of application of the petitioner’s mother under breadwinner scheme is arbitrary and illegal as the scheme is for the benefit and aid of the deceased family. He further submitted that rejection of application of petitioner on technicalities is irrational and contrary to settled principles of law. He further submitted that the petitioner is fully eligible, educated and has requisite qualifications, except for the age. He also submitted that petitioner’s mother did not opt for job on the health ground and therefore, the corporation ought to have extended benefit to the petitioner by appointing the petitioner in the respondent corporation under breadwinner scheme. The petitioner relied upon the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 38779 of 2017, dated 23.12.2022, judgment in W.P. No. 8614 of 2012, dated 13.04.2017 and also the judgment of this Court in Smt. K. Lakshmi vs. A.P.S.R.T.C. and Others, 2013 SCC Online A.P. 815, dated 23.12.2013. 11. Per contra, learned standing counsel for respondent-corporation submitted that under breadwinner scheme, dependent of deceased family is provided with employment in the respondent corporation, however, the same is subject to proposed applicant fulfilling the eligibility criteria such as possessing educational qualifications and attaining the age of 18 years etc. 12. Learned standing counsel further submitted that petitioner did not disclose the actual fact of rejection of application of petitioner’s mother was rejected as she was under height and further, the request of the petitioner was not considered as he did not attain the requisite age and therefore, on both the grounds, the writ petition is misconceived devoid of merits and liable to be rejected. He further contended that petitioner’s mother was advised to opt for additional monetary benefits in lieu of employment, however, the petitioner’s mother did not choose for the additional monetary benefit. 13. The point for consideration is whether petitioner is entitled for appointment under breadwinner scheme in the light of he not meeting the requisite pre-conditions under breadwinner scheme especially not attaining the minimum required age of 18 years as on the date of submission of application. Consideration: 14. 13. The point for consideration is whether petitioner is entitled for appointment under breadwinner scheme in the light of he not meeting the requisite pre-conditions under breadwinner scheme especially not attaining the minimum required age of 18 years as on the date of submission of application. Consideration: 14. Perusal of the pleadings and material placed on record would show that petitioner’s father was driver in respondent-corporation in Adilabad depot and had expired on 20.06.1999. The petitioner’s mother made an application for employment under breadwinner scheme, however, her candidature was not considered since she did not possess required height. It is also borne by the record that respondent corporation has advised to petitioner’s mother to opt for additional monetary benefits under breadwinner scheme, however, it appears that neither petitioner, nor his mother opted for additional monetary benefits under breadwinner scheme as suggested by respondent-Corporation. 15. In alternate, mother of the petitioner submitted an application for employment for petitioner herein, however, his candidature also could not be considered by respondent corporation as he was below the age of 18 years, which is minimum age acquired for appointment apart from requisite educational qualification. 16. In Smt. K. Lakshmi (supra), the petitioner’s husband, who was working as Driver in respondent-Corporation (APSRTC) went missing on 03.04.1992 and the wife of the driver filed a suit vide O.S. No. 267 of 2006 for a declaration that her husband shall be deemed to have been dead. The Civil Court, eventually, allowed the suit through judgment and decree dated 11.07.2006. Thereafter, wife of the driver made application to the Transport Corporation for compassionate appointment. In the peculiar circumstances, the High Court directed the Corporation to consider the request of the wife of driver and settle all the benefits and claimed for compassionate appointment. The above case is disguisable on facts and therefore, will not come to the aid of the petitioner. 17. The other judgments referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner are, in fact, relates to delay in submission of application for compassionate appointment. Therefore, the judgments referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on facts and do not apply to the facts of the present case. 18. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Others, (1994) 4 SCC 138 the Hon’ble Supreme Court delineated the scope of claim for compassionate appointment. Therefore, the judgments referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on facts and do not apply to the facts of the present case. 18. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Others, (1994) 4 SCC 138 the Hon’ble Supreme Court delineated the scope of claim for compassionate appointment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “2......The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. 3. Unmindful of this legal position, some Governments and public authorities have been offering compassionate employment sometimes as a matter of course irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased and sometimes even in posts above Classes III and IV. That is legally impermissible. 4. It is for these reasons that we have not been in a position to appreciate judgments of some of the High Courts which have justified and even directed compassionate employment either as a matter of course or in posts above Classes III and IV. We are also dismayed to find that the decision of this Court in Sushma Gosain vs. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 468 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 662 : (1989) 11 ATC 878 : (1989) 4 SLR 327 has been misinterpreted to the 4point of distortion. The decision does not justify compassionate employment either as a matter of course or in employment in posts above Classes III and IV.” (Emphasis supplied) 19. The decision does not justify compassionate employment either as a matter of course or in employment in posts above Classes III and IV.” (Emphasis supplied) 19. In Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India, 2011 (4) SCC 209 the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “(15) Now, it is well settled that compassionate employment is given solely on humanitarian grounds with the sole object to provide immediate relief to the employee's family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our constitutional scheme, and ordinarily public employment must be strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No other mode of appointment is permissible. Nevertheless, the concept of compassionate appointment has been recognised as an exception to the general rule, carved out in the interest of justice, in certain exigencies, by way of a policy of an employer, which partakes the character of the service rules. That being so, it needs little emphasis that the scheme or the policy, as the case may be, is binding both on the employer and the employee. Being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve. (16) to (19) xxx (20) Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind: (i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. (ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time. (iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be. (iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependants of the deceased/incapacitated employee viz. parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is Class III and IV posts.” 20. Following the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in Umaesh Kumar (supra) and Bhawani Prasad Sonkar (supra), the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in B.G. Suresh Babu vs. Principal Secretary to Government Health, Medical and Family Welfare, Government of Telangana and Others, 2021 SCC Online T.S. 1582 held as under: “7. The scheme of compassionate appointment being an exception to the normal mode of recruitment to public service, it has to receive strict and narrow interpretation. It is wrong to assume that a right is vested in the dependent of ex-employee to seek employment at any time irrespective of date of demise/retirement on medical grounds and irrespective of the financial status of the family and after long lapse of time. 8. Providing employment under the scheme is intended to tide over the sudden crisis engulfing the family on account of loss of bread winner/permanent incapacity. It is something akin to fire fighting mechanism. This crisis cannot be treated as continuous. If claim is belated, the very fact that family has survived for a long time without such employment would militate against such claim. It is to be born in mind that there are millions of Indians who need succor and their families are also in dire need of employment. Highly educated people are driven to seek low paid class-IV employment out of desperation. 9. In the long line of precedent decisions this issue has come up for consideration before Supreme Court. Broad principles that emerge from the decisions of the Supreme Court in (i) Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (ii) Union of India vs. Bhagwan Singh, (iii) Director of Education (Secondary) vs. Pushpendra Kumar, (iv) Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India, (v) CCE and Customs vs. Prabhat Singh, (vi) MGB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarthi Singh, (vii) SBI vs. Surya Narain Tripathy, (viii) Canara Bank vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, are as under: “1. The appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception to the normal recruitment procedure to public posts. An exception can not subsume the main provision. 2. The object of granting compassionate employment is to relieve the family of financial constraints on account of untimely demise of bread winner/bread winner developed serious health problem losing his job and to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. 3. Employment under the scheme can be provided only if the employer is satisfied that unless the employment is provided the family will not be able to meet the crisis and only after assessment of financial condition. 4. Posts in class III and class IV should alone be offered. 5. The consideration for employment on compassionate grounds is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. 6. Claim for compassionate employment should be made within a reasonable time or within the time specified in the scheme formulated by employer. It cannot be claimed and offered after lapse of time and after crisis is over. Delay in seeking such a claim is anti thesis to the very objective of the scheme. 7. The scheme and the policy of compassionate appointment is binding both on the employer and the employee. 8. Being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve. 9. The claim has to be considered within a reasonable period of time. 10. The Courts/Tribunals should not fall prey to any sympathy syndrome. The Courts are not supposed to carry Santa Claus's big bag on Christmas eve to disburse the gift of compassionate appointment to all those who seek a Court's intervention. 11. Consideration of claims should be to available vacancies. If there are more claims than available vacancies a fair and transparent selection process should be conducted based on a comparative compassion gradient or on some such like criteria. 12. An ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment. Courts/Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration.” 21. If there are more claims than available vacancies a fair and transparent selection process should be conducted based on a comparative compassion gradient or on some such like criteria. 12. An ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment. Courts/Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration.” 21. From the above decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and also the decision of learned single Judge of this Court, it is settled principle of law that compassionate employment is given solely on humanitarian grounds with the sole object to provide immediate relief to the employee’s family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The compassionate employment is recognized as an exception to the general rule in certain exigencies as per the scheme or policy of the employer and such scheme is binding both on the employer and the employee. Further, the scheme or policy being an exception, the same has to be strictly construed. 22. In the present case, the applications submitted by the mother of the petitioner as well as petitioner are rejected on the ground of not meeting the required qualifications i.e. height of mother was under height and insofar as the petitioner is concerned, petitioner did not attain the majority of 18 years even after relaxing five years from the date of death. Conclusion: 23. In the light of above factual background, in considered opinion of this Court, the writ petition is devoid of merits and thus, fails and accordingly, dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to seek additional monetary benefits in lieu of employment under breadwinner scheme and respondent-Corporation shall consider such request of the petitioner and take appropriate decision within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of application from the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. 24. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.