Telangana High Court
A. Venkataiah , K.Venkataiah, vs Telangana State Road Transport ... on 19 July, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 31014 OF 2016
ORDER:
Petitioner claims to be the grandson of late Smt. A. Venkamma, who worked as Sweeper in the State-owned Road Transport Corporation at its 3rd respondent Depot on regular basis for more than 15 years and died in harness on 21.12.2001. The case of petitioner is that since his maternal grandparents did not have male child, they adopted him as son and to that effect, declaration application dated 16.12.1997 was also submitted to the 3rd respondent and he was accordingly, issued bus pass treating him as son of Smt. Venkamma. After her death, petitioner is stated to have made an Application before the 3rd respondent to consider his case for compassionate appointment in 2002 itself as he possessed required qualification for the post of Conductor, on which the 2nd respondent - Regional Manager seemed to have issued letter dated 16.09.2002 informing the 3rd respondent to take necessary action. Thereafter, petitioner stated that he roamed around Respondents 2 and 3, but they were dragging the matter that there was ban from the then Government of Andhra Pradesh on compassionate appointment. After so much 2 pursuation, the 3rd respondent officials served the impugned order dated 04.08.2003 on 01.07.2014 rejecting his case on the ground that he was adopted child and consequently, not eligible for appointment under bread winner scheme in view of Circular No. PD 30/2000, dated 05.05.2000 which prohibits employment to adopted son. Challenging the same, this Writ petition is filed.
2. In the counter filed on behalf of the Corporation, it is stated that petitioner's grandmother was appointed on 01.01.1983 as Sweeper. She claimed to have adopted her daughter's son i.e. petitioner in 2000 based on adoption deed attested by an Advocate & Notary. On 16.12.1997, she had given declaration of family members for privilege bus pass in favour of petitioner. It is also stated that after her death on 21.12.2001, terminal benefits were settled in favour of her nominee i.e. husband. In 2002, petitioner applied to the Depot Manager, Devarakonda for compassionate appointment as Conductor. However, by proceedings No.P2/756(1)/2002, dated 04.08.2003, the 3rd respondent rejected his Application on the ground that adopted child or sons-in-law of employees died in harness are not eligible for appointment under bread-winner scheme and the said proceedings was sent to A.Lalaiah, husband of Smt. A. Venkamma by post on 11.08.2003. Thus, 3 the allegation of petitioner that he had been approaching Respondents 2 and 3, but they were dragging the matter on the ground that there was ban from the then Government of Andhra Pradesh on compassionate appointment is incorrect. It is contended by the respondent that petitioner slept over the matter for more than 11 years. On 01.07.2014, he approached the respondents stating that he lost the copy of rejection and requested to provide one more copy; accordingly, considering his request, another copy of rejection proceedings was issued to petitioner. The writ petition is therefore, devoid of merits and does not warrant indulgence of this Court.
3. Petitioner filed a reply to the counter affidavit stating that he had not received any communication much less rejection proceeding dated 04.08.2003 either in person or through post. He never stated that he lost rejection order copy dated 04.08.2003. He explained that so far, he had not received any communication about consideration or non-consideration of his Application and requested respondents to provide employment under breadwinner, thus, the above rejection was served on 01.07.2014 in the 3rd respondent office. Therefore, there is no truth in the averment of the respondents. 4
4. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri V. Narasimha Goud submits that respondents ought to have appreciated that in law there is no difference between adopted son and son born. It is submitted that Serial No.8 of Item No. VII of Circular, dated 05.05.2000 is contrary to the public policy, hence, the same is liable to be quashed. According to learned counsel, the Corporation treated petitioner as son of late Smt. A. Venkamma by issuing privilege bus passes on submission of declaration by adopted mother, therefore, they cannot reject his case for compassionate appointment.
5. Heard Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondent Corporation.
6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that as per Circular No. PD 30/2000, dated 05.05.2000, Item No. VII other conditions, Sl.No.8, adopted child or sons-in-law of employees died in harness are not eligible for appointment under bread- winner scheme, hence, petitioner is not eligible for employment under the said scheme. In this regard, Sri V. Narsimha Goud placed reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in P. Vijayalakshmi v. District Co-operative Central Bank 5 Limited, Vizianagarm 1. In the said judgment, the Division Bench quoted the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. K.B. Urushabendra Kumar (AIR 1994 SC 1528), wherein it has been held that 'when the factum of adoption and its legality remains unquestionable, the law of the Hindus on the subject must necessarily have its consequences'. The Division Bench held that 'rituals which precede a valid adoption in case of Hindus are necessary, but proof that the child was given in adoption by the natural parents and the adoptive parents accepted the child, may not be necessary when the adoptive parents did not dispute the status of the child and accepted the adoption. Thus holding, it has been held that 'it is fair to read the first government order extending the privilege to the dependents of the deceased employee to the adopted child as well. The confusion, if any, in this behalf has been clarified by a subsequent Government Order. Both the Government Orders have been taken notice of by the learned Single Judge. A combined reading of the two Government Orders leaves no manner of doubt that, if at all there was any cause to doubt the validity of the appointment of the petitioner- appellant in the service of the respondent Bank, the appellant was not adopted by the deceased as his daughter. Since the adoption is not in 1 (1996) 1 APLJ (SN2) 5 6 doubt, there was no infirmity the appointment given to the petitioner- appellant there is no question, therefore, for any application by the petitioner - appellant to the respondent - bank for compassionate appointment afresh. The order impugned in the Writ Petition is illegal and is fit to be set aside.'
7. In the instant case, the status of petitioner as an adopted son is not in dispute at any stage either by the deceased employee or by the Corporation, according to which, even in the counter, the employee submitted declaration to that effect and applied for issuance of privilege bus pass. Though the Corporation, in view of the Circular dated 05.05.2000, rejected the case of petitioner, in the light of the judgment of the the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.B. Urushabendra Kumar's case which has categorically held that when the factum of adoption and its legality remains unquestionable, the law of the Hindus on the subject must necessarily have its consequences, the question of rejecting the candidature of petitioner on the ground that he was an adopted son is unfounded. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner that in law, there is no difference between adopted son and son born holds water. This Court therefore, is of the view that the Circular insofar as Clause 8 of VII (other terms and conditions of the scheme) 7 concerning adopted son, is liable to be quashed and is accordingly, quashed. Consequently, petitioner is also entitled to the benefits of the employee who died in harness, as if he is a biological son.
8. Learned counsel also produced copies of G.O.Ms.No 2, dated 05.01.2013 and G.O.Ms.No 15, dated 07.02.2014. In G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 05.01.2013, Government, after careful examination, accorded permission to Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, APSRTTC, to provide compassionate appointments to all the eligible dependants of the employees, who died in harness, numbering around 1120 pending since very long time w.e.f. 01.01.1998 in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation against sanctioned vacancies, as per the recruitment guidelines in vogue subject to fulfilling eligibility criteria and qualifications with retrospective effect, as a special case and as one time measure. Thereafter, another G.O.Ms.No. 15, dated 07.02.2014 was issued stating that Government, after careful consideration and in continuation of orders in G.O.Ms.No. 2, dated 05.01.2013, hereby clarify that the scheme of compassionate appointments to the eligible and qualified spouses / children of an employee died in harness in APSRTC is not a one-time measure with retrospective effect, but it is also to 8 extend the scheme further with prospective effect also in as much as the said scheme cannot deprive other eligible dependants from further appointments under compassionate grounds as the same was given with retrospective effect. Accordingly, the scheme shall be continued for future cases also i.e. beyond 31.12.2010. From a perusal of both the Government Orders, it is evident that scheme of compassionate appointment has prospective applicability to all the eligible dependants.
9. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that scheme of compassionate appointment is applicable to petitioner since he is, undisputedly, an adopted son of the employee who died in harness. The impugned order which rejected the candidature of petitioner for compassionate appointment is therefore, liable to be set aside.
10. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed, setting aside the order 04.08.2003 issued by the 3rd respondent. Consequently, respondents are directed to provide employment to petitioner as Conductor, subject to his fulfilling the requirement criteria. No costs.
9
11. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 19th July 2024 ksld