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
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,
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. 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
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
(1996) 1 APLJ (SN2) 5
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)
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
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.
11. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any
shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
19th July 2024
ksld
