Telangana High Court

M. Shiva Kumar vs Joint Mang. Dir., Tsrtc., Hyd., ... on 13 December, 2022

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

       HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA


           WRIT PETITION No.38779 OF 2017

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned standing counsel for the respondent

corporation.

2. Perused the record.

3. The order impugned dated 17.07.2017 passed by

the 2nd respondent in proceedings No.LC1/785/WP(23)

/2015-RM:MB, reads as under:

"Sri. M.Shiva Kumar (S/o.Late M.Sree Ramulu, E.53029, Conductor of SDNR depot) has filed W.P.No.31078/2015, before the Hon'ble High Court against the respondent Corporation for not considering his case for compassionate appointment under the Bread Winner Scheme for the post of Conductor/Shramik in pursuance of his application dated 23.09.2013.

The Hon'ble High Court disposed the W.P.No.31078/2015 on 23.09.2015 with a direction to the respondent Corporation to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of Notification fated 02.03.2013 and other rules governing Bread Winner Scheme and pass appropriate orders.

On perusal of Personal records of the deceased Sri M.Sree Ramulu, E.53029, Conductor of SDNR depot, it is observed that he was appointed as Conductor w.e.f. 06.06.1974 and was expired on 19.05.1997 while working at Shadnagar depot. Immediately after the death of the employee the spouse has applied for compassionate appointment during which time there as ban on the compassionate appointments.

Sri. M.Shiva Kumar, S/o Late Sree Ramulu E.53029, Conductor of Shadnagar depot, has submitted an application on 23.09.2013 i.e., after 16 years from the date of death of his father wherein he stated in his application that his mother was also

expired on 26.09.2011 and the appointments under bread winner scheme were not considered during such period and she has applied for compassionate appointment and later herself stated that she could not perform the duties since the children are very small. Hence he has applied this application to provide compassionate appointment under bread winner scheme.

In terms of Notification No.PD-04/2013, dated 02.03.2013, the Head Office has given guidelines to all the Regional Managers to register applications under bread winner scheme for compassionate appointments to all the eligible dependents of the employees who died in harness w.e.f.01.01.1998 against the sanctioned vacancies and fulfilling eligibility criteria as a special case and as one time measure. But in the instant case Sri Sree Ramulu E.53029, Conductor of Shadnagar depot, died on 19.05.1997, who will to come under the purview of compassionate appointments under bread winner scheme in terms of Notification No.PD-04/2013, dated 02.03.2013, as contended by the petitioner Sri.M.Shiva Kumar.

In view of above, Sri. M.Shiva Kumar, S/o. Late M. Sree Ramulu, E.53029, Conductor of SDNR depot, does not come under the purview of compassionate appointments under bread winner scheme in terms of Notification No.PD-04/2013, dated 02.03.2013.

Hence it is concluded that Sri M.Shiva Kumar, S/o. Late M.Sree Ramulu, E.53029, Conductor of SDNR depot, will not be considered under bread winner scheme since the Corporation has taken the compassionate appointments as per the above notification is w.e.f. 01.01.1998 and accordingly the representation dated 23.09.2013 of Sri M.Shiva Kumar S/o. Late M.Sree Ramulu, E.53029, Conductor of SDNR depot, is disposed off."

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

4. A bare perusal of the order impugned clearly indicates

that the only reason for denying the relief of compassionate

appointment to the petitioner is that the petitioner Sri.M.Shiva

Kumar, had submitted an application on 23.09.2013, after 16

years from the date of death of his father, duly stating in the

said application that his mother also expired on 26.09.2011

and thereafter, the petitioner S/o. Late Sree Ramulu E.53029,

Conductor of Shadnagar Depot, had submitted an application

seeking compassionate appointment.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents places

reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in

(2019) 6 SCC 774 in Punjab State Power Corporation

Limited and Others Vs Nirval Singh, in particular, Para

8, which reads as under:

"8. The first is the delay in approaching the courts for redressal after a period of 7 years even if he is making representations. The very objective of providing immediate amelioration to the family is extinguished. The second is that the earlier policy having been abolished and the new policy having coming into force, the application has been considered under the new policy and the options available were offered to the respondent who failed to avail of the same."

6. Learned counsel for the respondents pleads that the

petitioner is not entitled for the relief of compassionate

appointment as prayed for in the present writ petition, in view

of the fact that the petitioner had made an application after

16 years from the death of the deceased employee.

7. The order impugned dated 17.07.2017, and in

particular Para 3 reads as under:

"3. On perusal of Personal records of the deceased Sri M.Sree Ramulu, E.53029, Conductor of SDNR depot, it is

observed that he was appointed as Conductor w.e.f. 06.06.1974 and was expired on 19.05.1997 while working at Shadanagar depot. Immediately after the death of the employee the spouse has applied for compassionate appointment during which time there as ban on the compassionate appointments."

8. This Court opines that the plea of the respondents

that the petitioner approached for compassionate

appointment by filing an application on 23.09.2013

after 16 years from the date of death of his father, is

not a valid ground to reject or deny the benefits of

compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

Admittedly, as borne on record, and even as per the

proceedings dated 17.07.2017 of the 2nd respondent

herein and in particular para 3, it is very clear that soon

after the death of the deceased employee, the

petitioner's mother i.e., W/o. Late Sree Ramulu, had

applied for compassionate appointment, but however,