Y. Bhaskar Rao, J.
1. Assailing the order dated February 11, 1994 made in W.P. No. 2039 of 1994 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, this writ appeal is filed.
The facts of the case are as follows :
The appellant is the son of one G. Veeranna who was working in the services of the respondent corporation as a Sweeper. He (G. Veeranna) died on May 1, 1989 while he was in service leaving behind the appellant and the other family members as his legal heirs. While so, the A.P.S.R.T.C. issued Circular PD-112/1987 dated October 5, 1987 where in 30% posts of helpers, kalasis have been allotted to the children of the deceased employees, retired employees and employees who were declared medically unfit. In the said circular the criteria for recruiting the Children of the ex-employees of the Corporation under the above said 30% quota was also laid down. The appellant-petitioner made an application to the corporation authorities to appoint him on compassionate grounds. The said application was rejected on September 4, 1993. The said rejection was challenged in writ petition No. 2039 of 1994 contending that he (the petitioner) being the dependent of the deceased employee G. Veeranna who is his father, he is entitled to be appointed as per the above said circular and that the Corporation authorities have erred in rejecting his claim. The Corporation authorities contested the claim of the petitioner stating that by the date of death of the father of the appellant-petitioner his (deceased employee) wife i.e. the mother of the appellant is already in the employment of the Corporation and therefore as per the terms and conditions laid down in the Circular No. PD/64/88 dated July 13, 1988 the Corporation authorities rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner appellant. After hearing both the learned counsel the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and holding that as the claimant's mother is already in the employment of the Corporation as a Sweeper, the claimant (petitioner appellant) is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. Hence this Writ appeal.
2. Sri G. Vidyasagar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the mother of the appellant was appointed earlier to the death of his (appellant) father and therefore that cannot be taken as a ground for rejecting the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds as according to the circulars issued from time to time by the Corporation after the death of an employee of the Corporation any one of his dependents has to be provided with an employment in the Corporation and as no one was given employment under compassionate grounds, the appellant is entitled to be appointed and any rejection of his case would amount to the violation of principles of natural justice and the same is contrary to the circulars issued by the Corporation itself. Thus submitting the learned counsel prays that the writ appeal may be allowed.
3. Sri I. Aga Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the APSRTC contended that a reading of the circular No. PD/64/88 dt. July 13, 1988 makes it crystal clear that for providing compassionate appointment the family members of the deceased employee should not have any earning member or have a source of livelihood to maintain the family and as the appellant - petitioner's mother is already employed in the Corporation though through regular selection, the appellant-petitioner is not entitled to be appointed under compassionate grounds and the learned Single Judge was right in rejecting the claim of the appellant-petitioner by dismissing the writ petition. The learned counsel further contended that the intended object of the circular must be implemented in a good spirit. If a direction is given to appoint the appellant-petitioner irrespective of the terms and conditions of the circular dated July 13, 1988 it amounts to contravening the terms of the circular. He further contended that the above said circular issued by the Corporation has got force of law as the same is issued under Regulation 25 of the A.P.S.R.T.C. (Service) Regulations, 1964 and the same is binding on the parties. Thus contending, the learned counsel prays that the writ appeal may be dismissed.
4. In view of the above rival contentions, the point to be considered is whether the appellant is entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds in the services of the A.P.S.R.T.C.
5. The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C) is constituted under an Act of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Regulation 25 of the A.P.S.T.R.C (Service) Regulations, 1964 reads as follows;
'The Corporation may issue such instructions, not inconsistent with the provisions of the regulations, as it may consider necessary to give effect to and carry out the purposes of these regulations or otherwise to secure effective control over the employees to whom these regulations apply and may by a resolution authorise any authority subordinate to it to do so, subject to such conditions and limitations if any, as may be specified by it in this behalf.'
As per the above regulations the circulars are issued. The Circular No. PD-204/77-78 dated January 16, 1978 governing the appointment of the children of the employees who died in harness is issued by the APSTRC. It is proper to extract the relevant, portion of the above said circular which is as under :
'(1) When an employee dies in harness, leaving his family in immediate need of assistance there being no other earning member, the recruiting authority may appoint one child (either son or daughter) or the spouse, or dependent-child if any, of the deceased employee in the service of the Corporation.
(2) This concession shall also apply to any of the employees, who are on deputation or any other duty or on training or on leave etc., The point for consideration is, that the employee should have died while in service.
(3) The appointment is restricted to only one child/dependent-child or the spouse, as the case may be, of the deceased employee. The dependent child may be appointed to the post, only when there is no other bread winner to the family, except the deceased himself/herself, and not otherwise. A thorough investigation should be made into the matter including the dependency of the child of the deceased employee and also whether the deceased wife/child of his own for providing employment before considering the dependent child.
(4) It shall not be the matter, if a son who is already employed either in the Corporation or elsewhere, has divided himself from the family. If the family is left without a bread-winner, one son/daughter out of the remaining or the wife may be considered for the appointment into the services of the Corporation'.
A reading of the above terms makes it very clear it the above said conditions or terms must be satisfied for appointing a person on compassionate grounds. In the instant case the mother of the appellant-petitioner was already employed in the services of the Corporation before the death of his father. Hence the condition that there should not be any earning member in the family of the deceased employee is not satisfied. Interpreting the provision relating to the appointment on compassionate grounds the Supreme Court in LIC v. Ramachandra Ambekar (1994-II-LLJ-173) held as follows : at P. 175.
'The High Courts and the Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration. The Courts should endeavor to find out whether a particular case in which sympathetic consideration are to be weighed falls within the scope of law. Disregardful of law, however, hard the case may be, should never be done. In the very case itself, there are regulations and instructions governing the matter. The Court below has not even examined whether a case falls within the scope or relevant statutory provisions. The appellant Corporation being a statutory Corporation is bound by the Life Insurance Corporation Act as well as the Statutory Regulations and Instructions. They cannot be put aside and compassionate appointment be ordered.'
The Supreme Court while considering what is the object of giving compassionate employment in Umesh kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1995-I-LLJ-798) held as follows;
'The whole object of granting compassionate employment is 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. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency.'
6. The above cited two decisions of the Supreme Court make it clear that there is an obligation on the Courts to implement the statutory provisions as it is and the circulars issued under the statute are having the force of law and therefore any directions contrary to the circular cannot be issued merely with a sympathetic view. In the instant case also as per the circulars issued by the Corporation stating that once a member of the family is having any earning member, the other members are not entitled to get the employment on compassionate grounds, the appellant-petitioner is not entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds. Therefore, there are no merits in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.