Telangana High Court
J. Anusha, Nizamabad Dist. vs M.D., Apsrtc, Hyd. And 2 Ors. on 29 January, 2024
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
*****
W.P.No.1165 of 2015
Between:
J.Anusha
.....Petitioner
And
APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director and two others
.......Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 29.01.2024
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No
may be allowed to see the Judgment ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes/No
marked to Law Reporters/Journals ?
3. Whether Their Ladyship/ Lordship wish to : Yes/No
see the fair copy of the judgment ?
____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
2
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
WP. No.1165 of 2015
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
W.P.No.1165 of 2015
DATE: 29.01.2024
Between :
J.Anusha
.....Petitioner
And
APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director and two others
.......Respondents
For petitioner : Mr. V.Siddhartha Goud, Advocate
representing Mr. V.Narasimha Goud,
Advocate.
For Respondents : Ms. Sai Mahitha representing
Mr. Thoom Srinivas, learned
Standing Counsel for TSRTC.
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? CITATIONS:
2008 (5) ALD 701
3
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
WP. No.1165 of 2015
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION No.1165 OF 2015
ORDER:
Petitioner is aggrieved of not providing employment to her on
compassionate grounds in view of the death of her husband.
2. Heard both sides and perused the record.
3. The husband of the petitioner, namely J.Subhash was appointed
as a Contract Driver in the year 2006 in the respondents-Corporation
by following due selection process. He worked continuously till the
date of his death i.e., 18.12.2009 in the accident that was caused while
driving the passenger bus from Nizamabad to Adilabad. Case of the
petitioner is that due to the untimely death of her husband, they lost
their livelihood and they are not having any other properties so as to
survive with two minor sons, aged 11 and 14 years apart from one
minor daughter. Therefore, the petitioner has made an application to
respondent No.2 seeking to provide employment on compassionate
grounds as a Record Tracer or Conductor, as she fulfills the requisite
educational qualifications for the said posts. The said request of
petitioner was rejected on the ground that the service of the late
husband of the petitioner was not regularized by the time of his death,
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
and hence, Bread Winner Scheme was not applicable to them. Hence,
the writ petition.
4. Respondents have filed counter affidavit admitting the service
of late husband of petitioner with the Corporation as a Contract
Driver. The only contention of respondents is that the services of the
persons appointed along with the deceased husband of the petitioner
were regularized with effect from 01.01.2010, whereas, the husband
of petitioner had died on 18.12.2009 i.e., earlier to the date of such
regularization. It is their case that the scheme of compassionate
appointment in the respondents-Corporation is applicable only to the
dependants of the regular employees died in harness and that the
dependants of the casual/contract employees died in harness are
eligible only for additional monetary benefits but are not eligible for
compassionate appointment as per Circular dated 05.05.2000. It is
stated that the issue of extending the benefit of Bread Winner Scheme
to the dependants of the Contract Employees is pending with the
Government. It is their case that even if the scheme of compassionate
appointment for the dependants of the Contract employees comes into
force in future, the petitioner herein is not eligible for benefit under
such scheme, since the date of death of her husband falls much prior
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
to the cut-off date i.e., 03.08.2013, from which date, the scheme was
sought to be implemented. Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of
the writ petition.
5. The un-disputed facts of the case are that the husband of
petitioner was appointed in the respondents-Corporation as a Contract
Driver in the year 2006 after undergoing due process of selection. It is
also not in dispute that he died on 18.12.2009 in the accident caused
while on duty, driving the bus from Nizamabad to Adilabad. The
claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected on
the sole ground that the husband of the petitioner was working on
contract basis and his services were not regularized by the time of his
death, and hence, the scheme of compassionate appointment cannot
be applied to his case. It is to be noted that the husband of petitioner
had died on 18.12.2009, whereas, the services of the persons who
were appointed along with him, were regularized with effect from
01.01.2010 i.e., after 13 days of his death.
6. In support of his case, the learned counsel for petitioner has
relied on the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature,
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in K.Prasanna Kumar v.
Superintending Engineer (Operation), APCPDCL, Kurnool and
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
another 1. In the said judgment, when an employee had died prior to
regularization of his service and the services of his colleagues were
regularized one month thereafter, this Court has directed to provide
compassionate appointment to the son of the deceased. This judgment
is squarely applicable to the case on hand and the case of the
petitioner is on better footing, as her husband had died while on duty
on 18.12.2009 and within 13 days thereafter, the services of similarly
situated persons were regularized i.e., on 01.10.2010. Thus, as per the
law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner
is eligible for compassionate appointment.
7. It is to be noted that the scheme of compassionate appointment
is a beneficial legislation to save the families of the deceased
employees from starvation. The death of the husband of petitioner
was not due to any other reason but it was the result of an accident
caused while discharging his duties as a Driver of the passenger bus
belonging to the respondents-Corporation. Therefore, on mere
technicalities, the request of petitioner for compassionate appointment
cannot be rejected. Keeping in view the regularization of similarly
appointed persons soon after the death of the husband of petitioner,
2008 (5) ALD 701
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
this Court is of the considered view that the benefit of compassionate
appointment can be extended to the petitioner. The pendency of issue
of providing compassionate appointment to the family members of
deceased employees with the Government, has nothing to do to reject
the case of the petitioner.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed setting
aside the order dated 30.12.2014. The respondents are directed to
provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner in any suitable
post as per her qualifications within a period of three (03) months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 29.01.2024
N.B:
L.R. copy be marked.
b/o
lk/rev
