WP/19851/2000 of Katla Lakshman, Vs The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Karimnagar, on 26 December 2005

Order:

This writ petition has been filed seeking Mandamus declaring the action of therespondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for providing appointmenton compassionate grounds, though he is eligible and qualified and directing him to produce Succession Certificate, as arbitrary and illegal, and for a consequentialdirection to the respondents to consider and provide employment on compassionategrounds in any post to which the petitioner is eligible.

2. Petitioner, claiming to be the son of late K. Gangaram, who worked as Helper atJagityal Depot of the APSRTC, the respondents, states that his father died while inservice on 25-09-1997 at Civil Hospital, Jagityal, leaving him, his mother, sister anda brother, behind. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the eldest son born to thefirst wife of his father and after the death of his mother, his father married Smt. KatlaLaxmi, and they all have been living together. It is stated that after the death of hisfather, her stepmother, being the nominee, was paid all the benefits. Petitionerclaims that immediately after the death of his father, he made an application dated08-12-1997, i.e. within three months from the date of death of his father to therespondents seeking appointment in the respondent-Corporation on compassionategrounds, by enclosing the requisite documents. It is further stated that his stepmotherhad also made a representation to the authorities for compassionate appointment;however, she had withdrawn the same and gave ‘No objection’ for providingemployment to the petitioner. It is further stated that the Depot Manager, APSRTC,by proceedings dated 29-09-1999 directed the petitioner to produce SuccessionCertificate for considering his case for appointment on compassionate groundsunder the ‘Bread Winner Scheme’. Petitioner states that on receipt of the saidproceedings, he submitted a representation duly enclosing Family MemberCertificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pagedepalli, and requested theauthorities to consider and provide him appointment on compassionate grounds. It isalleged that no action whatsoever had been taken on the said representation.Petitioner impugns the action of the respondents in directing him to produceSuccession Certificate for they are being given only in respect of moveableproperties and not for the purpose of employment. Alleging inaction on the part of therespondents in not taking any action on his representation and asking him toproduce Succession Certificate, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counselappearing on behalf of the respondent-Corporation.appearing on behalf of the respondent-Corporation.

4. Respondents filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner and stated that petitioner’s father was working in the corporation and he died inharness on 25-09-1997. The deceased employee had a wife, mother, and twodaughters and a sister as per his personal records; however, the name of thepetitioner was not mentioned in the family declaration submitted by the employee on19-04-1991 and the wife of the deceased employee who was declared a nomineehad received all the settlement amounts. It is stated that the petitioner made arepresentation requesting to provide employment on compassionate grounds underthe ‘Bread Winner Scheme’.

The same was considered and on noticing that the name of the petitioner was notfound in the family declaration submitted by the deceased employee, the petitionerwas advised to produce Succession Certificate for considering his case foremployment on compassionate grounds under the ‘Bread Winner Scheme’, andproceedings to that effect were issued on 29-09-1999. Learned Standing Counselalso produced a copy of the declaration issued by the deceased employee.

It is mainly contended that as the name of the petitioner is not available in thedeclaration given by the deceased employee on 19-04-1991, consideration of hiscase for providing compassionate appointment, does not arise. It is, thus, prayed todismiss the writ petition.

5. In the record produced by the learned Standing Counsel, as also the declarationgiven by the employee of his family particulars, the name of the petitioner is nowherefound. Learned Standing Counsel also placed before this Court the Bread WinnerScheme, issued by them in the circular dated 05-05-2000. Clause 4 of Condition No.VII reads as under. - “ The appointment is restricted to only one eligible dependant child orthe Spouse, as the case may be, of the employee died in harness.The dependant may be appointed to the posts specified earlier, onlywhen there is no other Bread Winner to the family, except thedeceased himself/herself, and not otherwise. A thorough investigationshould be made into the matter including the dependency of thechild/wife of the deceased employee for providing employment beforeconsidering. The nominations executed by the employee for PF.,Gratuity, SBT, SRBS., etc., should be cross checked with that ofdeclarations for Bus Pass and Medical Identity Card for the abovepurpose.”

including the dependency of the child/wife of the deceased employee for providingemployment and the nominations executed by the employee for PF., Gratuity, SBT.,SRBS., etc., should also be cross-checked with that of the declarations for Bus Pass and Medical Identity Card.Learned Standing Counsel, on enquiry submitted that the deceased employee didnot avail medical benefits or Bus Pass in the name of the petitioner.

7. Petitioner’s name is neither found in the records of the respondents nor in thedeclaration given by the deceased employee. The deceased employee is also saidto have not availed any benefits, such as Medical, LTC, Bus Pass etc., in the nameof the petitioner. Even the monetary benefits have already been taken away by thewife of the deceased employee. In the absence of the name of the petitioner in therecords of the respondents that he is the son of the deceased employee, thepetitioner cannot be allowed to contend that he being the son of the deceasedemployee is entitled for employment on compassionate grounds under the ‘BreadWinner Scheme’, and no exception can be taken to the action of the respondents innot considering his case for appointment on compassionate grounds.

8. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

________________

N.V. RAMANA, J.

December 26, 2005

MRR