Dismissed

L. Venugopal, S/o. Late L. Dayakar v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Dec 2024WP/46755/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner's father, who died in harness while employed with the Transport Corporation. The court noted that the petitioner's mother had already accepted monetary benefits in lieu of employment. Citing prevailing circulars, the court held that availing such benefits disentitles the family from claiming compassionate appointment. The petition

What the court decided

AI extract

L. Venugopal, S/o. Late L. Dayakar Vs The… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

APHC010069772016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3333]

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 46755/2016

¶10

Between:

¶11

L.Venugopal, S/o. Late L. Dayakar ...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation ...RESPONDENT(S) and another

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶15

1.PILLIX LAW FIRM

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶17

¶18

2.ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC)

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

¶21

ORDER

¶22

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

¶23

“…. to issue an order or orders or direction or a writ one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not considering the case of the petitioner on compassionate grounds as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice, consequently direct the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15.07.2016 basing on the Circular dated 17.06.2016 …”

¶24

The petitioner's father, while working as a Conductor at Madanapalle-1 Depot, died in harness on 03.08.2007. The petitioner's mother, having no source of income, made a representation to the respondent Corporation, requesting them to consider her case for appointment to any suitable post on compassionate grounds. In pursuance of which, she was orally informed that her name is registered in their office and would be considered as and when vacancy arises. Thereafter, she was also orally informed that she was not eligible for the posts of Driver and Conductor. However, the Depot Manager advised petitioner's mother to claim for an additional monetary benefit in lieu of employment. Thereafter, she filed a representation dated 02.12.2007, stating that she was not interested in additional monetary benefit and she needed employment. Despite this, the Corporation sent the additional monetary benefit by way of cheque to her residential address.

¶25

The case of the petitioner is that, though the petitioner's mother refused to accept the additional monetary benefit, the same was forcibly sent by

¶26

¶27

cheque to their residential address and as such the petitioner is entitled for appointment under compassionate grounds in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 05.01.2013 and Circular No.PD-29/2016, dated 17.06.2016, issued by the 1^st respondent. The petitioner also submitted a representation on 15.07.2016 to the 2^nd respondent, requesting to consider his case basing on the circular dated 17.06.2016. Hence the writ petition.

¶28

The respondents filed a detailed counter, duly admitting the facts as stated by the petitioner, stated that, as per the rules in force and the request made by the petitioner's mother, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid to her vide cheque bearing No.972949, dated 16.11.2007, which was received on 20.11.2017, as additional monetary benefit in lieu of compassionate appointment.

¶29

It is further stated that as per Circular No.30/2000, dated 05.05.2000, vide item No.VII (12), in cases where dependents of employees who died in harness availed additional monetary benefits in lieu of employment, their request for appointment of a dependent under the scheme cannot be entertained, even if they are willing to return the monetary benefits to the Corporation with interest.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

¶31

On perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner and the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it can be seen that the petitioner’s mother received

¶32

¶33

the additional monetary benefit in lieu of compassionate appointment way back in the year 2017 itself, i.e., pending the present writ petition. If at all the case of the petitioner is that the cheque was forcefully sent to their residential address, they should have immediately addressed a letter to the respondents refusing to receive the said cheque. But, in the case on hand, it is admitted that no such attempts have been made by the petitioner. However, having availed the benefit of additional monetary benefit in lieu of compassionate employment, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any further appointment under Circular No.30/2000, dated 05.05.2000.

¶34

In view of the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Petition shall stand closed.

¶36

¶37

JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶38

Date: 11.12.2024 KGR

L. Venugopal, S/o. Late L. Dayakar v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

L. Venugopal, S/o. Late L. Dayakar v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.M.Krishna Vs State of Ap

B.Eswara Rao Vs State of Ap

L.Apparao Vs State of Ap

K.S.V.V.N.T. Lakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B Chandra Mohan Vs State of Ap,Prl.Scy,P.Raj,Guntur Dist,& 4

Meesala Venkata Durga Prasad Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh