Dismissed

G.Doraswamy v. the Vice Chairman and Managing Director A.P.S.R.T.C and 3 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Nov 2023WP/23645/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a request for monetary benefits and compassionate appointment. The court held the petitioner ineligiate as he retired before the relevant scheme came into force.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's request to consider the case for appointment or monetary benefits was rejected.

G.Doraswamy Vs the Vice Chairman and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVA (Special Original Jurisdiction) / TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER s

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 23645 OF 2003

¶7

Between:

¶8

G. Doraswamy, S/o Sidhayya, Hindu, aged about 58 years, R/o 10-579, Amanabaial Street, Pedda Harizana Wada, Chittoor, Chittoor District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C,Mushirabad ,

¶12

Hyderabad.

¶13

The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Tirupati Region, Tirupati.

¶14

The Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Chittoor Division, Chittoor^District.

¶15

The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Chittoor Depot,^Chittoor.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly^{oneinthenatureofwrit} of mandamus declare the action of the Respondents in not providing appointment to D. Murali, son of the Petitioner or alternatively not granting monitary benefits to the petitioner as per Circular No.PD-85/1989 dated 6.7.1989 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to provide employment by appointing D. Murali, son of the Petitioner to the post of Conductor or Cleaner or alternatively to grant monitary benefits as per Circular No.PD-85/1989 dated 6.7.1989 forthwith.

¶18

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2004IWPMP. NO: 19444 OF 2004)

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the representation dt 27-9-1993 of the petitioner for sanction of monetary benefits.

¶20

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2003(WPMP. NO: 29712 OF 2003)

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^the High^Court may be pleased^to direct the respondents to consider the case of the^{petitionerssonD.MURALIfor} appointment the post of conductor or cleaner forthwith.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. J M NAIDU

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4 : SRI K VISWANATHAM^{(SCFORAPSRTC)}

¶24

The Court made the following : ORDER

¶25

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.23645 OF 2003

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This writ petition is filed challenging th-e inaction^of the respondents in providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner’s son and not granting monetary benefits to the petitioner as per Circular No.PD-85/1989 dated 06.07.1989.

¶29

Heard Sri J.M. Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Viswanatham, learned standing counsel for respondents.

¶30

The brief averments made in the writ petition are that the petitioner retired voluntarily from service^on 21.03.1989. Subsequently, he made a representation^to the authorities requesting the appointment of his son, G.D. Sampath, under compassionate grounds. as a Conductor or Cleaner. However, his son, after appearing before the selection committee, was found unfit for^the Conductor post due to a vision problem. The petitioner then requested the 2"^ respondent for the appointment^of his other son, Murali, but he was advised to claim

¶31

WP No.23645 of 2003

¶32

-2-

¶33

monetary benefits under Circular No.85/1989, dated 06.07.1989. The petitioner made a representation for monetary benefits but was refused by the respondent authorities stating that the petitioner was not eligible^for monetary benefits under the said Circular as he had retired before the Circular was given effect.

¶34

As seen from the record, it appears that challenging the rejection of the representation of the petitioner, for providing employment to his son, no appeal has been filed till date.

¶35

This Court perused the Circular No.PD85/1989, ’dated 06.07.1989, which deals with the monetary benefit to the employees who retired voluntarily on medical grounds and implementation of amended Regulations 6 and 6A of APSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964. The scheme evolved by the respondent Corporation has come into force from 11.04.1989. The petitioner retired from service on 21.03.1989. Hence, the scheme evolved under the Circular is not applicable to the present facts of^the case

¶36

¶37

• WP No.23645 of 2003

¶38

-3-

¶39

and as such, this Court is not inclined to direct the

¶40

respondents to consider the case of the petitioner.

¶41

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No

¶42

costs.

¶43

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

¶44

Sd/- M. SRINIVAS stand closed. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶45

SECTION OFFICER

¶46

To, 1. One CC to SRI. J M NAIDU Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI. K VISWANATHAM (SC for APSRTC) [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies Madhu gl

HIGH COURT

DATED:21/11/2023

ORDER

WP.No.23645 of 2003

DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

G.Doraswamy v. the Vice Chairman and Managing Director A.P.S.R.T.C and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Doraswamy v. the Vice Chairman and Managing Director A.P.S.R.T.C and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S Fairoz Vs the District Educational Officer

The Depot Manager, Vis. Vs K. Suryanarayana, Vis. and Another

P.Saroja, Vs Besant Thesophical College

B. Rama Swamy Naik, Vs The Divisional Engineer / Enquiries

P. Rajagopal Vs The Divisional Cooperative Officer

G.Narasinga Rao Vs Viskahapatnam Dock Labour Board, Rep.by Its Chairman, Vskm.