WP/26977/2006 of Murapala Ramesh Vs APSRTC, Rep. by its Maanging Director, on 28 December 2006

ORAL ORDER:

This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings of thesecond respondent dated 26.8.1999 rejecting the claim of thepetitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground of under-ageand advising to opt for additional monetary benefits in lieu ofemployment.

The father of the petitioner who was employed in therespondent corporation as Cleaner died during the course of serviceon 25.2.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application forappointment under compassionate grounds. On consideration of thematter the second respondent by impugned proceedings dismissedthe claim of the petitioner on the ground of under-age and advised tofile an application for additional monetary benefits in lieu ofappointment. Hence, the present writ petition.

Learned standing counsel for respondent corporation submittedthat the case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of under ageand the same cannot be said to be illegal. It is also stated thatpresently a ban is operating on the appointments and petitioner is atliberty to avail the additional monetary benefits in lieu of appointment.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedStanding Counsel for the respondents and perused the material papers produced by the respondents.

The apex Court in Shri Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others[[1]], has held that compassionate appointment isnot a vested right to be exercised at any time in future. I n Smt.

Sushma Gosain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors[[2]] it wasobserved that the fact that the ward was a minor at the time of death ofhis father is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisage specificallyotherwise, to state that as and when such minor becomes a major hecan be appointed without any time consciousness or limit. The aboveview was re-iterated in Phoolwati (Smt.) v. Union of India and Ors [3] and Union of India and Ors. v. Bhagwan Singh[[4]].

In the present case, it is not the specific case of the petitionerthat the Rules of the respondents corporation provides that as andwhen the minor becomes major his case shall be considered forappointment on compassionate basis. The petitioner very vaguelystates in the affidavit that the Government has issued an orderproviding employment at the age of 16 yeas and to calculate theservice from 18 years for all practical purposes of service, but nomaterial is brought to the notice of this Court. The copy of the saidGovernment order was neither filed along with the writ petition norproduced before the Court. In the absence of any material, it cannot be said that the petitioner was discriminated. Since thepetitioner does not possess the required qualification of age, his casewas rejected by impugned proceedings and the same cannot be saidas an illegal order. That apart, the impugned order is dated 26.8.1999and the petitioner having kept quiet for more than seven years, nowfiled the present writ petition without explaining the reasons forabnormal delay.

For the foregoing reasons, I see no reason to interfere with thematter at this belated stage. However, the petitioner is at liberty tosubmit an application for grant of additional monetary benefits in termsof the scheme flouted by the respondent corporation. On filing anysuch application, the same shall be considered in accordance with lawand the circulars of the respondent corporation, expeditiously.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

____________

N.V.RAMANA,J

DATE: 28.12.2006TVK

178

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

Conclusion

WRIT PETITION NO : 26977 of2006

DATED: 28.12.2006

[1]1994 (4) SCC 1381994 (4) SCC 138

[2]1989 (4) SCC 4681989 (4) SCC 468

[3]1991 Supp (2) SCC 6891991 Supp (2) SCC 689

[4]1995 (6) SCC 476