Disposed

Bandaru Manasa Nagadurga at Bhajana Manasa Nagadurga v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Jul 2024WP/5034/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Where a claimant for compassionate appointment shows that no final order accepting or rejecting her application has been communicated, and the authority has merely returned proposals for re-verification, the High Court under Article 226 will not enter into disputed questions of fact but direct the competent authority to consider and pass appropriate orders on the pending application within a stipulated time.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pass appropriate orders on petitioner's application dated 01.03.2018 for compassionate appointment within two months.

Bandaru Manasa Nagadurga at Bhajana Manasa… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 5034 OF 2023

¶6

Between:

¶7

Bandaru Manasa Nagadurga @ Bhajana Manasa Nagadurga D/o Late Bandaru Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, Age about 36years, Occ. Un employee R/o. H.No. 9-4-11, Library Street, Kovvur Village and Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶8

...PETITIONER AND

¶9

The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶10

The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, (A.P.S.R.T.C), Rep. by its Managing Director, Vijayawada.

¶11

The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Rajamahendravaram Region, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.

¶12

The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Amalapuram . Region Amalapuram, Dr,B.R.AmbedkarKonaseema District.

¶13

The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Ravulapalem Depot, Ravulapalem, Dr.B.R.AmbedkarKonaseema District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the^ Respondent authorities in not considering and not passing any orders for the Petitioner's genuine claim for appointment in any suitable post on Compassionate

¶16

^ grounds is highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to G.O. Ms. No. 350 General Administration (Ser-A) Department, dated 30-07-1999 and Memo N0:'li6147/Ser-A/2OO3 dated 08-10-2003 and also contrary to the Judginept of this Hon'ble Court reported in 2013(4) ALT 501 (DB) apart frdm violation of Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in any suitable post as per the educational qualification on compassionate grounds with all consequential benefits.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in any suitable post on compassionate grounds forthwith.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. V SATYANARAYANA NEKKANTI

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent NoS.1 &2: GP FOR TRANSPORT

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5: SRI T VINOD KUMAR,

¶22

ADVOCATE

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶25

THE HON’BLE SR! JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.5034 of 2023

¶27

Bandaru Manasa Nagadurga @ Bhajana Manasa Nagadurga, D/o. Late Bandaru Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, Age about 36 years, Occ: Un-employee, R/o. H.No.9-4-11, Library Street, Kovvur Village and Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶28

...Petitioner

¶29

Versus

¶30

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi Guntur District and four others.

¶31

...Respondents

¶32

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri V. Satyanarayana Nekkanti Counsel for respondent No. 1 : GP for Services-1 Counsel for respondent Nos'2 to 5 : Sri T. Vinod Kumar (Standing Counsel)

¶33

ORDER

¶34

Heard Sri K. Rambabu, learned counsel representing^SriV.

¶35

Satyanarayana Nekkanti, learned counsel for the petitioner^and Sri T. Vinod Kumar, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5. I I

¶36

f I

¶37

Page 2 of 6

¶38

SRS, J W.P.No.5034of2023

¶39

The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in not considering and passing orders for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds^interms of G.O.Ms.No.350 General Administration (Ser-A) Department, dated 30.07.1999 and Memo No.116147/Ser-A/2003 dated 08.10.2003 and the judgment reported in 2013 (4) ALT⁵⁰¹ as illegal and arbitrary.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s father died in harness on 13.02.2018 while working as ticket inspector in Ravulapalem Depot. The petitioner, being the eldest daughter, made application dated 01.03.2018 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner^annexed the relevant documents. The 3^^ respondent by communication dated 21.09.2019 directed the petitioner to attend the verification process on 27.09.2019 at Zonal Staff Training College, APSRTC, V.T. Agraharam, Vizianagaram. The petitioner attended and submitted all the documents for the verification process. However, no order is passed, hence, the writ petition is filed.

¶41

4, Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents. It was contended, inter-alia, that the employees of APSRTC are absorbed in A.P.T.D with effect from 01.01.2020. All the

¶42

SRS, J W.P.No.5034 of 2023

¶43

Page 3 of 6

¶44

applications for the compassionate appointment were^submitted to the concerned District Collectors for consideration. The .candidature of .the petitioner was not considered on the ground that the petitioner, is married daughter of the deceased employee and the same was communicated to the petitioner vide letter No.Admn.2/Estt.,/2022 dated 14.04.2022. The proceedings^dated 14.04.2022 were filed along with the counter affidavit.

¶45

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would^submit that the petitioner did not receive any such proceedings,^asper the version of the respondents, either accepting or rejecting her claim. The aforementioned proceedings dated 14.04.2022 filed along with the counter affidavit does not indicate^{eitheraccepting} or rejecting the petitioner’s case.

¶46

Thus, as seen from the material, there is dispute regarding the death of father of the petitioner and petitioner making application for appointment on compassionate grounds.^Theonly dispute is communication to the petitioner rejecting^theclaim. It is apt to extract relevant portion in the communication^from the Collector & District Magistrate, Kakinada to the Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Rajamahendravaram dated 14.04.2022.

¶47

¶48

Page 4 of 6 ,

¶49

SRS, J W.P.No.5034of2023

¶50

“I invite your attention to the references cited and it is to inform you that on scrutiny of 114 proposals received in the reference 2"'^ cited, 81 proposals are found defective and not in accordance with the provisions of Compassionate appointments, it is also observed that proposals were merely forwarded to the District Collector without thorough verification of the information and documents submitted by the applicants with reference to the existing rules and^also recommended the ineligible persoris for appointment.

¶51

In the above circumstances, 81 proposals that are defective and ineligible are herewith returned with the reasons specified therein (List enclosed) and you are hereby directed to re-verify the proposals carefully concerning^the existing orders of the Government issued from time to time on compassionate appointments scrupulously.”

¶52

A perusal of the extracted portion does not indicate that the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner^and passed order either accepting or rejecting her claim. The learned District Collector returned alleged defective proposals for re verification.

¶53

in that view of the matter, without going into other disputed questions of facts, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the counsels, directing^the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the application made by the petitioner dated 01.03.2018 seeking compassionate appointment pursuant to the death of the petitioner’s father by name Sri Bandaru Veera Venkata Satyanarayana who worked as ticket inspector in Ravulapalem Depot, as expeditiously as possible within a period of two (02) months from the date of ( (

¶54

Page 5 of 6

¶55

SRS, J W.P.No.5034 of 2023

¶56

receipt of the copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶57

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

¶58

stand closed.

¶59

SD/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR , //TRUE COPY// / / SECTION OFFICER '

¶60

¶61

The Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶62

The Managing Director, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, (A.P.S.R.T.C), Vijayawada.

¶63

The Regional ,Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Rajamahendravaram Region, Rajarnahendrayaram, East Godavari District.

¶64

The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Amalapuram Region, Amalapurarfi, Dr,B.R.AmbedkarKonaseema District.

¶65

The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Ravulapalem Depot, Ravulapalem, Dr.B.R.AmbedkarKonaseema District.

¶66

One CC to SRI V.SATYANARAYANA NEKKANTI Advocate [OPUC]

¶67

Two CCs to GP FOR TRANSPORT, High Court of Andhra^Pradesh [OUT]

¶68

One CC to Sri T. Vinod Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶69

Three C.D Copies AL(MBT)

it:

HIGH COURT

DATED:02/07/2024

\ \

ORDER

WP.No.5034 of 2023

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Bandaru Manasa Nagadurga at Bhajana Manasa Nagadurga v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandaru Manasa Nagadurga at Bhajana Manasa Nagadurga v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanupuru Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

D.Koundanya Sai Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

G. Tirupathi Rao, Vs .The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Paidikalva Sridevi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

VadIa Ravindra, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.DathatreyuIu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh