Allowed

G.Jaya Krishna, Chittoor Dist v. Vc and Md, Apsrtc, Hyderabad and 2 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Dec 2022WP/3988/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought relief against the rejection of his application for compassionate appointment as a Shramik in APSRTC following his father's death. The Court directed respondents to consider the petitioner's case and appoint him in a suitable post within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's case and appoint him in any other suitable post on compassionate grounds within two months from the date of receipt of the order.

G.Jaya Krishna, Chittoor Dist Vs Vc… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASHEKAR RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 3988 of 2017

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

¶5

“to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly on in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in issuing the proceedings vide Proceedings No.E6/684(02)/2016-RM(T), dated 06.12.2016, in rejecting the appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds is as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the principles of Natural Justice, consequently, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner in any suitable post on compassionate grounds forthwith and pass such other order or orders s this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” (in verbatim)

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) appearing for the respondents.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, after the death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner made an application to the respondents, requesting for compassionate appointment in any suitable post in the Respondent Corporation. The Personnel Officer of the

¶8

¶9

Respondent Corporation issued proceedings to the petitioner vide Proceedings No.E6/684(02)/2016-RM(T), dated 24.08.2016, to attend the interview for selection to the post of ‘Shramik’ on compassionate grounds under ‘Bread Winner Scheme’. The petitioner had attended the said interview on 02.09.2016 along with all his original documents. Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent had published the Provisional Selection List, but the petitioner’s name was not reflected in the said list. As the petitioner’s name was not reflected in the said Provisional Selection List, the present writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner, seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his case on compassionate grounds.

¶10

Learned standing counsel for APSRTC appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner is not having right palm and therefore, he cannot perform his duty as Shramik and thus, his case was not considered for the compassionate appointment to the post of ‘Shramik’.

¶11

As the petitioner is the only son of the deceased father and the petitioner’s mother is depended on him, this Court is of the considered view to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner and appoint the petitioner in any other suitable

¶12

¶13

post on compassionate grounds, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶14

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed

¶15

of. No order as to costs.

¶16

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶17

____________________________________ TARLADA RAJASHEKAR RAO, J

¶18

1^st December, 2022. cbn

¶19

¶20

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASHEKAR RAO

¶21

Writ Petition No. 3988 of 2017 (disposed of)

¶22

1^st December, 2022

¶23

cbn

G.Jaya Krishna, Chittoor Dist v. Vc and Md, Apsrtc, Hyderabad and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Jaya Krishna, Chittoor Dist v. Vc and Md, Apsrtc, Hyderabad and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Lakshmi Deep Water Port Workers Union Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Special Secretary

Sa Hussain Vs Apsrtc., ;Rep. by Md., Kri., and 3 Others

T.S.Rao, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

R.Venkata Sarveswara Reddy Vs Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution

Singuluri Venkata Rama Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Seshaiah, Vs Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Represented by its