ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings, dated 13.02.2015 and 02.09.2015 issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively, and seeking a direction to the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the 2 nd petitioner, pursuant to the award passed by the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Labour Court’) in I.D.No.90 of 1995 dated 02.12.1995 as confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.27363 of 1996, dated 14.12.2005. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :- (a) Sri N.Narsimulu, who is the husband of the 1st petitioner and father of the 2nd petitioner, while working as a Conductor removed from service vide order, dated 05.11.1990 on the charge of unauthorized absenteeism. Against the said removal order, Sri N.Narasimulu preferred an appeal before the Divisional Manager and the same was rejected by order, dated 26.08.1991. Before he could prefer a revision petition, Sri N.Narasimulu died on 04.10.1991. (b) Thereafter, the 1st petitioner along with her three minor children filed I.D.No.90 of 95 before the Labour Court seeking to set aside the removal order, dated 05.11.1990 and to direct the respondents to treat that Narasimhulu died while in service, pay all the benefits including back wages and provide compassionate appointment to the 2 nd petitioner instead of monetary benefits. The Labour Court passed Award dated 02.12.1995 by setting aside the order of removal, directed to treat that Mr.Narasimulu died on 04.10.1991 while in service, and further directed to regularize the absence of Mr.Narasimulu from 16.12.1989 to 15.07.1990 by granting leave and to pay wages till he died. Further, the Labour Court directed to provide employment to the 1st petitioner herein, who is the only major among the legal heirs, within one month, according to her qualifications. (c) Aggrieved by the Award, dated 02.12.1995, earlier the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Uppal Depot, Hyderabad, filed W.P.No.27363 of 1996 before this Court and the same was dismissed by order, dated 14.12.2005. (d) After dismissal of the said Writ petition, the petitioners approached the respondents seeking to implement the award and also to provide compassionate appointment. The respondents informed the petitioners to wait until the government accords permission for compassionate appointments. As the 2 nd petitioner attained majority, the 1 st petitioner has given no objection for providing employment to the 2 nd petitioner. The respondents informed the petitioners to wait until the government accords permission for compassionate appointments. As the 2 nd petitioner attained majority, the 1 st petitioner has given no objection for providing employment to the 2 nd petitioner. Accordingly, the 2 nd petitioner has submitted a representation to the Regional Manager, Hyderabad on 12.01.2010 seeking suitable employment, as he studied upto Intermediate. The 2nd petitioner also submitted another representation to the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, Greater Hyderabad Zone, on 04.02.2010 seeking employment. (e) As there was a ban on compassionate appointment from the year 1998 to 2013, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 05.01.2013, directing the respondent Corporation to take up the compassionate appointments for 1120 sanctioned vacancies from among the eligible dependents of the deceased employees, whose applications are pending from the year 1998 to 31.12.2010. Pursuant to the said G.O., the respondent Corporation issued Notification No.4/13, dated 02.03.2013. The 3rd respondent prepared a list of eligible candidates for compassionate appointments. As the name of the 2 nd petitioner was not found in the list, the 2 nd petitioner has submitted a detailed representation to the 1 st respondent on 12.02.2013 to consider his claim for compassionate appointment as an alternate dependent, in view of no objection submitted by the 1 st petitioner. The 2 nd petitioner submitted another representation dated 03.03.2014 to the 1st respondent requesting to consider his case for compassionate appointment in the place of his mother i.e., 1 st petitioner herein. (f) The 1 st petitioner was asked to appear before the Selection Committee on 28.11.2014 with relevant documents vide letter No.E6/684(1)/2014-SR, dated 28.10.2014 of the 4th respondent. Accordingly, the 1st petitioner along with the 2nd petitioner has attended the 3rd respondent’s office on 28.11.2014. The 3rd respondent, without considering the case of the petitioners, directed the 1 st petitioner to avail additional monitory benefit in lieu of employment vide Proceedings No.E6/684(1)/2014-SR, dated 13.02.2015. Subsequently, the 2 nd petitioner made representation to the 1 st respondent to consider his case as an alternate applicant. The 2nd respondent has rejected the claim of the 2nd petitioner vide proceedings No.W4/140(3)/15-PO-1, dated 02.09.2015 stating that the 2nd petitioner has not attained the eligibility for the same post, for which the original applicant was rejected, within five years from the date of the death of the employee. The 2nd respondent has rejected the claim of the 2nd petitioner vide proceedings No.W4/140(3)/15-PO-1, dated 02.09.2015 stating that the 2nd petitioner has not attained the eligibility for the same post, for which the original applicant was rejected, within five years from the date of the death of the employee. Challenging the proceedings, dated 13.02.2015 and 02.09.2015, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that W.P.No.27363 of 1996 filed by the respondent Corporation was dismissed only on 14.12.2005 and the ban on compassionate appointments existed upto 05.01.2013 when the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 05.01.2013 and therefore, rejecting the case of the 2nd petitioner for compassionate appointment is not justified. The 3rd respondent, without considering the contentions advanced by the petitioner, directed the 1st petitioner to avail additional monitory benefit in lieu of employment vide proceedings dated 13.02.2015 and the same was confirmed by the 2 nd respondent vide proceedings dated 02.09.2015. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that the proceedings of the 3 rd respondent is contrary to the Award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.90 of 1995 dated 02.02.1995 as confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.27363 of 1996, dated 14.12.2005 and also contrary to G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 05.01.2013. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the proceedings dated 13.02.2015 and 02.09.2015 issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3 and allow the writ petition. 5. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed counter affidavit stating as follows: (a) The petitioner's husband Sri N.Narsimulu while working as a Conductor of Uppal Depot was removed from service with effect from 16.10.1990 for his unauthorized absenteeism vide proceedings No.P1/1(11)/1990-UPL, dated 16.10.1990. The husband of the 1st Petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Divisional Manager (H) and the same was rejected vide proceedings No.PA/20(80).91-H, dated 26.08.1991. (b) Thereafter, the petitioners filed I.D.No.90 of 1995 before the Labour Court and the same was disposed of on 02.12.1995. As per the award in I.D.No.90/95, only the 1 st petitioner (N.Maheswari) shall be provided employment, who is only major among the legal heirs of N.Narsimulu. In compliance with the said order, the 1st petitioner was advised to attend before the selection committee ?n 28.11.2014 with relevant documents for verification. As per the award in I.D.No.90/95, only the 1 st petitioner (N.Maheswari) shall be provided employment, who is only major among the legal heirs of N.Narsimulu. In compliance with the said order, the 1st petitioner was advised to attend before the selection committee ?n 28.11.2014 with relevant documents for verification. Accordingly, the 1 st petitioner attended before the Selection committee on 28.11.2014 and informed that she was not in a position to perform conductor job. In those circumstances, the selection committee advised the 1 st petitioner to prefer additional monetary benefit fund in lieu of employment vide proceedings No.E6/684(1)/2014-SR, dated 13.02.2015. The 1 st petitioner also submitted unwillingness letter before the selection committee. 6. Learned Standing counsel for the respondents submits that the 1 st petitioner herself informed the respondent authorities that she is not interested in performing the duties of a conductor. Therefore, the respondents offered additional monetary benefit in lieu of employment. However, the 1st petitioner failed to submit the claim form to the respondents as per the selection committee proceedings No.E6/684(1)/2014-SR, dated 13.02.2015. The 2 nd respondent, after hearing both sides and after considering the material available on record, rightly rejected the claim of the 2nd petitioner vide proceedings No.W4/140(3)/15- PO-1, dated 02.09.2015. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard Sri.A.G.Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the record. 8. In the instant case, Sri N.Narsimulu, who is the husband of the 1 st petitioner and father of the 2 nd petitioner, while working as a Conductor removed from service vide order dated 05.11.1990 and he died on 04.10.1991. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner along with her three minor children filed I.D.No.90 of 95 before the Labour Court seeking to set aside the removal order, dated 05.11.1990 and to direct the respondents to treat that Narasimhulu died while in service, pay all the benefits including back wages and provide compassionate appointment to the 2nd petitioner instead of monetary benefits. The Labour Court passed Award dated 02.12.1995 by observing as follows :- 1) The order of termination of service of Mr.N.Narasimhulu passed by the Depot Manager and confirmed by the Divisional Manager, is set aside. 2) The respondent shall treat that Mr.Narasimhulu died on 04-10-91, while in service. The Labour Court passed Award dated 02.12.1995 by observing as follows :- 1) The order of termination of service of Mr.N.Narasimhulu passed by the Depot Manager and confirmed by the Divisional Manager, is set aside. 2) The respondent shall treat that Mr.Narasimhulu died on 04-10-91, while in service. 3) The respondent shall regularise the absence of Mr.Narasimhulu from 16.12.89 t? 15.07.90 by granting leave available to him on medical grounds either with pay, with half pay or without pay. If Mr.Narasimhulu had earned leave to his credit he can be granted earned leave with full pay for a part or full of the above period of absence on the ground of ill-health. The wages if any payable to Narasimhulu for the above period after granting the leave referred to above shall be paid to the petitioners. 4) Mr.Narasimhulu is entitled to full wages and all other monetary benefits from 16.07.90 t? 04.10.91 on which date he died. These wages shall be paid to the petitioners. 5) All the benefits payable to the legal heirs of an employee who died in service, shall be paid to the petitioners. 6) Any amount paid to Mr.Narasimhulu for the period of his absence (Referred to in the order of the Divisional Manager) and any amount already paid to the petitioners after the death of Mr.Narasimhulu can be adjusted towards the amounts payable to the petitioners under the clauses 3 to 5 supra. 7) The respondent shall provide employment to the first petitioner (Smt.N.Maheswari) who is the only major among the legal heirs of late Narasimhulu within one month after publication of the Award according t? her qualifications. 9. Aggrieved by the Award, dated 02.12.1995, earlier the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Uppal Depot, Hyderabad, filed W.P.No.27363 of 1996 before this Court and the same was dismissed by order, dated 14.12.2005. After dismissal of the said Writ petition, the petitioners approached the respondents seeking to implement the award and also to provide compassionate appointment. The 3rd respondent, vide Proceedings No.E6/684(1)/2014-SR, dated 13.02.2015, directed the 1 st petitioner to avail additional monitory benefit in lieu of employment. After dismissal of the said Writ petition, the petitioners approached the respondents seeking to implement the award and also to provide compassionate appointment. The 3rd respondent, vide Proceedings No.E6/684(1)/2014-SR, dated 13.02.2015, directed the 1 st petitioner to avail additional monitory benefit in lieu of employment. Thereafter, the 2 nd respondent has rejected the claim of the 2 nd petitioner vide proceedings No.W4/140(3)/15-PO-1, dated 02.09.2015 stating that the 2nd petitioner has not attained the eligibility for the same post, for which the original applicant was rejected, within five years from the date of the death of the employee. 10. The 3 rd respondent passed the order dated 13.02.2015 stating as follows :- “…. On the above ID award Corporation filed W.P.No.27363 of 1996 which was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court. As per the ID award spouse of the deceased employee has to be given employment. In compliance with the Hon’ble Judge of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional labour Court, Hyderabad (ID No.90/95). Smt.N.Maheshwari, W/o.Late N.Narsimulu, E.083467 Ex.Conductor of Uppal Depot was advised to attend before Selection Committee on 28.11.2004 with relevant documents for verification. Accordingly, Smt.N.Maheshwari, W/o.Late N.Narsimulu, E.083467 Ex.Conductor of Uppal Depot attended before Selection Committee on 28.11.2014 and informed that she was not in a position to perform conductor job. As Smt.N.Maheshwari, W/o.late N.Narsimulu, is unwilling to take up the job under Bread Winner Scheme, the Selection Committee advised her to prefer AMBF in lieu of employment. Therefore, Smt.N.Maheshwari, W/o.Late N.Narsimulu E.083467 Ex.Conductor of Uppal Depot is advised to prefer AMBF in lieu of employment. These proceedings are issued in compliance with the orders of Hon’ble Judge of the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad in I.D.No.90/95.” 11. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 05.01.2013 directing the respondent Corporation to provide compassionate appointment for 1120 sanctioned vacancies from among the eligible dependants of the deceased employees, whose applications are pending from 01.01.1998 to 31.12.2010. In the case on hand, Sri N.Narasimulu died on 04.10.1991. The said G.O. was issued in respect of applications pending from 01.01.1998 to 31.12.2010. The 1st petitioner herself attended before the Selection Committee on 28.11.2004 and she herself informed that she was not in a position to perform conductor job. In that view of the matter, the 3 rd respondent rightly advised the 1 st petitioner to avail additional monitory benefit in lieu of employment vide proceedings dated 13.02.2015. The 1st petitioner herself attended before the Selection Committee on 28.11.2004 and she herself informed that she was not in a position to perform conductor job. In that view of the matter, the 3 rd respondent rightly advised the 1 st petitioner to avail additional monitory benefit in lieu of employment vide proceedings dated 13.02.2015. Further, the 2 nd respondent rightly passed proceedings dated 02.09.2015 rejecting the case of the 2nd petitioner, since the 2nd petitioner has not attend the eligibility criteria for the same post, for which the original applicant was rejected, within five years from the date of the death of the employee. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners cannot seek compassionate appointment. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.