Boddupalli Shankaraiah vs The Chariman And Managing ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2503 Tel

      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

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

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

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

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:

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

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

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

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

                                                         PMD,J
                                         W.P.No. 22097 of 2022

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

W.P.No. 22097 of 2022

Dated: 20.09.2023

bak