THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.No. 22097 of 2022
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents No.1 to 5 in considering the representation of the petitioner dated 04.04.2022, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents to pay exgratia, compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till date of payment and to provide employment and grant family pension to the petitioner and to pass such other order or orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner's father was working as a lineman in Julapalli Section of Peddapally Division, Karimnagar Circle, under the respondents. It is submitted that the services of the petitioner have been taken by the respondent authorities for attending the O&M works of Vadkapur, Kachapur, Venkatraopalli, Balrajpalli and Keesulatapalli of Julapalli Section from 1987 and he was looking after the maintenance of transformers of the said villages. While so, on 13.05.2001 when 2 PMD,J W.P.No. 22097 of 2022 the petitioner was attending to the breakdown of 11 KY line on pole and was connecting the jumpers, due to negligence of lineman, power supply was given to the to the 11 KV, due to which, he met with an electrical accident and fell down from the top of the electric pole with burning injuries all over his body, resulting in the right hand of the petitioner being amputated. It is submitted that thereafter, the respondent No.4 has addressed a letter to the respondent No.3 on 26.07.2002 forwarding the application of the petitioner for appointment in any suitable post due to the electric accident which occurred while he was attending to the breakdown of 11 KY line on pole. However, the respondents have not taken any action thereon. Subsequently, the petitioner's father who was working as a lineman, died on 18.01.2003. The petitioner made a representation on 04.04.2022 and requested for sanction of family pension in addition to providing him with a job for the accident that occurred to him. The respondent No.4 forwarded the petitioner's letter to the respondent No.3 and the respondent No.3 had also sought a detailed report from the respondent No.4 with regard to the family pension. However, the same was rejected by observing that the 3 PMD,J W.P.No. 22097 of 2022 petitioner's brother has already been provided with compassionate appointment on the death of the employee and therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment and family pension. The petitioner also claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him while he was attending the work entrusted to him by the respondents. There was no action on the said representation and therefore, seeking relief under all the above three grounds, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the above submissions, has drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant documents filed along with the writ petition in support of his contentions. As regards the family pension, he submitted that the petitioner being a disabled person with more than 90% of disability as on the date of death of his father, is eligible for family pension during his life time under Rule 50 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. With regard to the maintainability of the writ petition about the compensation and also the eligibility of petitioner's claim for compensation, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of 4 PMD,J W.P.No. 22097 of 2022 Himachal Pradesh and Others Vs. Naval Kumar alias Rohit Kumar 1. As regards the compensation for loss of limb while attending to the work of the respondents, he placed reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of P.Venkateshwarlu Vs. The Superintending Engineer (S.E.), APCPDCL, Mahaboobnagar, Telangana State 2, wherein it was a case of the contract labourer working under a contractor with the respondent electricity department who lost a valuable limb while serving the respondent- TSSPDCL and the Court had directed the respondent therein that suitable appointment should be given to him.
4. Learned Standing counsel for the respondents, on the other hand relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner, in his affidavit, had stated that he was only assisting his father, who was a lineman and he was never engaged by the respondents to undertake the works of the respondent organization. It is submitted that when the petitioner was 1 AIR 2017 SC 718 2 W.A.No.919 of 2016, dt.28.09.2016 5 PMD,J W.P.No. 22097 of 2022 working voluntarily, and not at the request of the respondent corporation, any loss caused to him, is not the responsibility of the respondents and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the appointment nor compensation as claimed for. As regards the claim of the petitioner for family pension, the learned standing counsel submitted that since he has crossed the age of 25 years at the time of his father's death. It is submitted that since the petitioner's brother has been provided with compassionate appointment after obtaining the consent of all the family members, including the petitioner, he is not entitled for family pension. He further pointed out that the letter of the respondent No.4 was only forwarding the request of the petitioner and the certificate of experience placed by the petitioner is also not part of the record. He submitted that the records of the respondents do not have any such information and particularly the certificate does not mention any D.O. letter or the date and therefore, it cannot be relied upon.
5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the issues which need consideration in this writ petition are as follows: 6
PMD,J W.P.No. 22097 of 2022 (1) whether the petitioner is eligible for consideration for any appointment on the ground that he has lost a limb while working for the respondents voluntarily or at the request of the department;
(2) whether he is entitled to any compensation for the loss of limb;
(3) whether he is entitled for family pension as prayed for?
6. As regards the first issue is concerned, it is the first to be determined whether the petitioner has voluntarily worked for the respondents or has worked at the request of the respondents. The certificate issued by the Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operation), Peddapalli, certifies that the petitioner has attended to the O&M works of Vadkapur, Kachapur, Venkatraopalli, Balrajpalli and Keesulatapalli of Julapalli Section from 1987 till the date of accident due to non-
availability of O&M staff in the villages and he was also attending to the maintenance of all transformers of the above said villages including the fuse off call, revenue collection etc., on the request of the concerned i.e., Additional Assistant Engineer, Julapalli Section. Though, the said certificate is not 7 PMD,J W.P.No. 22097 of 2022 dated and does not contain any D.O. number, this certificate is also supported and corroborated by the letter of the Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operations), Peddapalli, in his letter addressed to the Superintending Engineer, Operation, NPDCL, Karimnagar, dated 26.07.2002. Therefore, the contention of the learned standing counsel that it is on the request of the petitioner that the letter was addressed and the contentions in the letter are only the contentions of the petitioner, is not correct. This Court is of the opinion that it is the reiteration of the contents of the certificate given in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, in accordance with the above documents the petitioner seems to have worked at the request of the authorities. Further, it is also not in dispute that the petitioner has met with fatal electrical accident on 13.05.2001 while attending to the breakdown of 11 KV line on pole and the amputation of right hand is due to the said accident. Therefore, it is clear that he has been injured while performing the work on 13.05.2001 on the instructions of the respondent authorities and therefore, he is eligible for the consideration for appointment in the respondent organization and he is also eligible for compensation as claimed by him for 8 PMD,J W.P.No. 22097 of 2022 the loss of limb. Thus, the issues No.1 and 2 are both answered in favour of the petitioner.
7. As regards the issue No.3 i.e., the petitioner's eligibility to seek family pension of his late father, the contentions of the respondents that since the compassionate appointment has been given to the brother of the petitioner with his consent only, he is not eligible for compassionate appointment as well as the family pension is not correct. The petitioner is not seeking the compassionate appointment on the death of his father, but he is seeking compassionate appointment in his own right for loss of his limb while discharging his duties and this issue has already been answered in favour of the petitioner.
8. As regards the family pension, this Court finds that the petitioner is eligible for the same, since he has suffered 90% disability during the life time of his father only and therefore, after the death of the his father, the petitioner being a disabled son of the deceased employee, is eligible for family pension under Rule 50 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Further, the judgments relied upon by the learned 9 PMD,J W.P.No. 22097 of 2022 counsel for the petitioner also supports his case for payment of compensation.
9. In view of the same, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to provide any suitable job to the petitioner and also pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of his accident till the date of payment and also to process his family pension papers and provide family pension to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 20.09.2023
bak
10
PMD,J
W.P.No. 22097 of 2022
8
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI W.P.No. 22097 of 2022 Dated: 20.09.2023 bak