Telangana High Court
WP/935/2000 of P.Srinivas, Vs The A.P.S.R.T.C., Ranga Reddy Region, I.B.S., Hyderabad. on 28 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.935 of 2000 Dated: 28.12.2005 Between P. Srinivas, s/o late P. Pochaiah, resident of 3-117/1, Machabolaram, Secunderabad. Petitioner And The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rangareddy Region, I.B.S., Hyderabad, rep. by its Regional
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
Writ Petition No.935 of 2000
Dated: 28.12.2005
Between
P. Srinivas, s/o late P. Pochaiah, resident of 3-117/1, Machabolaram, Secunderabad.
Petitioner
And
The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rangareddy Region, I.B.S., Hyderabad,rep. by its Regional Manager/Personnel Officer and others.
Respondents.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
Writ Petition No.935 of 2000
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order:
This writ petition is filed seeking to set aside the proceedings of respondent No.1 inAPSRTC No.P6/684(3)/98-RR, dated 31.07.1999 in rejecting the claim of thepetitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds and suggesting to avail theadditional monetary benefits.
The father of the petitioner, by name P. Pochaiah, who was working as CoachBuilder in respondent-Corporation, died in harness on 06.11.1995. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondent-Corporation for the post ofcleaner on compassionate grounds. While so, the first respondent, vide proceedingsNo. P6/684(3)/98-RR, dated 31.07.1999, deleted the name of the petitioner from thelist of candidates eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds on the groundthat the petitioner has not attained the minimum age of 21 years for the post of“Conductor” within the stipulated period of three years and advised the petitioner toavail additional monetary benefit in lieu of employment by submitting an applicationto the Depot Manager concerned. Hence, the present writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent-Corporation.
The grievance of the petitioner is that he is eligible to be appointed as Cleaner andin fact he has applied for the post of Cleaner and that there was no ban operating forthe post of Cleaner. The specific stand of the petitioner is that he has never appliedfor the posts of Conductor, Attender and Sweeper, and the respondent-Corporationcommitted procedural irregularity in considering his case for the post of ConductorGrade-II, Attender and Sweeper instead of Cleaner. The further grievance of thepetitioner is that though he has applied for compassionate appointment within theprescribed time limit, but the respondent-Corporation did not consider his applicationand kept it pending until it was rejected on the ground that it should have been madewithin three years from the date of death of his father. He, thus, prayed that theimpugned proceedings be set aside and the writ petition allowed.
Though the writ petition was admitted on 27.01.2000, no counter affidavit is filed bythe respondent-Corporation denying the averments made by the petitioner in theaffidavit filed in support of the writ petition, so far. Further, when the matter is takenup for hearing today, none appears for the respondent-Corporation, nor is there anyrepresentation made on its behalf. It is very unfortunate to note that though the writpetition was admitted in January 2000, till date the respondent-Corporation has notchosen to file counter affidavit in the matter, and no purpose would be served inkeeping the writ petition pending any further. In the absence of any counter filed bythe respondent-Corporation rebutting the allegations made in the affidavit filed insupport of the writ petition, this Court has no other alternative, except to presume thatthe averments made in the writ petition, are true and correct, and the petitioner isentitled for the relief sought in the present writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondent-Corporationto consider the case of the petitioner for the post of “Cleaner” under compassionateappointment and to pass appropriate speaking orders in accordance with law, asexpeditiously as possible.
___________________
N.V. RAMANA, J.
Date: 28.12.2005
Tvk/Nsr