Single judge disposed of a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner, holding the authorities to consider her case under relevant G.O.Ms. while declining to mandate a specific appointment location.
Direction to respondent authorities to consider petitioner's case for compassionate appointment within eight weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
WRIT PETITION No.12097 of 2014
Date: 09.06.2014
Between : C. Nirmala
.. Petitioner
and
The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and two others
.. Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
WRIT PETITION No.12097 of 2014
ORAL ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation, apart from perusing the record.
Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.
Shorn of extraneous particulars, the facts in brief are that the petitioner’s husband, one Sri C. Hari Prakash, who was working as a Shramik in the respondent-Corporation, died in harness on 26.06.2003, while he was discharging his duties at Zonal Work Shop, Nellore. Thereafterwards, the petitioner, being the wife and dependant of the deceased employee, went on representing to the authorities to consider her case for compassionate appointment.
The grievance of the petitioner is that though through G.O.Ms.No.2, Transport, Roads & Building (TR.II) Department, dated 05.01.2013, the respondent-Corporation had a policy reintroduced for providing compassionate appointment to the dependant persons of the deceased employees, the authorities so far have not acted on her representation.
The learned Standing Counsel, on his part, has submitted that the respondent-Corporation is willing to consider the case of the petitioner and dispose of her representations in terms of G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 05.01.2013 and also the consequential circulars issued by the
Corporation concerning the issue of compassionate appointment.
Without adverting to the merits of the matter, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition with a direction to the respondent-authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 05.01.2013 and also the consequential circulars issued in that regard.
At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made a representation that the petitioner hails from Chittoor District and that the petitioner and her husband were living in Nellore while her husband only on the compulsion of employment. The petitioner shall be put to severe hardship if she is provided compassionate appointment at any place other than Chittoor. This Court, however, is unable to entertain the said request on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner and issue any direction or mandamus that the petitioner should be provided employment only at a particular place. At the same time, it is left open for the petitioner to make a representation to the respondentauthorities, and in an event of the petitioner making a representation, it is for the respondent-authorities to consider the same in accordance with law. It is made clear that the entire exercise of considering the case of the petitioner for providing compassionate appointment shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
_______________________ DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J
Date: 09.06.2014 va
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent authorities should consider the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for appointment at a specific location.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C. Nirmala
Vice Chairman and Managing Director, APSRTC
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
