Dismissed

S.Venkanna v. The Superintendent of Post Offices

Telangana HC10 Mar 2014WP/5323/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal upholding an objection to the petitioner's compassionate appointment as Postman, holding that such appointment is not a matter of right and depends on available vacancies.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

S.Venkanna Vs The Superintendent of Post… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.5323 OF 2003

¶4

ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶5

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order, dated 04.9.2002, in O.A.No.1068 of 2002 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”) and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Postman on compassionate grounds without reference to Memo.B2/Comp./App-2001, dated 10.07.2001, issued by respondent No.1.

¶6

2. Case of the petitioner/applicant is that his father – S.Rajaiah, Group D employee, Adilabad District died in harness on 10.11.1996. He belongs to a very poor family and taking into consideration the indigence of the dependents, he was selected for compassionate appointment as Postman in Adilabad Division. Accordingly, attestation form for police verification was obtained and he was offered the post of Postman on daily wage basis from 1998. On 22.12.1999, respondent No.2 intimated that number in the approved list is 56. Respondent No.1 directed him to work as Postman, Sirpur Kagajnagar. He further issued orders on 29.11.2000 allotting him the work of Postman, Sirpur Kagajnagar. While so, respondent No.1 vide memo, dated 10.7.2001, intimated that the list of approved candidates for compassionate appointment was discontinued by respondent No.3 though the department had completed all formalities and obtained attestation forms also and allowed him to officiate wherever there was vacancy for almost four years. The applicant was removed from the

¶7

temporary post and his name was discontinued from the approved list. So, he filed the aforementioned Original Application.

¶8

3. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, disposed of the Original Application holding as under:

¶9

“(i) there is a waiting list in A.P. of compassionate appointments, “other than the waiting list referred to in the D.G’s letter dt.8.2.2001 and the DPT’s O.M. dated 24.11.2000 consisting of names of candidates who have been found eligible and waiting for consideration of their names for appointment. The factual position prevailing in the State as a whole will have to be taken note of by the Chief Post Master General, A.P. Circle, Hyderabad by compiling information incorporated therein the date of demise of the employees, date of decision given by the circle relaxation committee, the post to which eligible, the year of recruitment against which they are to be considered, the persons actually accommodated and the balance still remaining to be accommodated against 5% quota prescribed against the direct recruitment vacancies and seek further directions in the matter from the Director General, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.

¶10

(ii) Pending receipt of such directions, issue an order to keep in abeyance the proposed action of “discontinuation” sought to be resorted to by the senior superintendent of Post Offices, in the O.As under consideration.

¶11

(iii) Time for compliance – Three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶12

(iv) We make it clear to the applicants that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right. It is intended for extending immediate relief to those who have lost their breadwinner at that point of time. The department will be free to consider the cases of the applicants against available vacancies in the order of seniority of the applicants, without discrimination.

¶13

(v) With the above directions, the O.As. are disposed of. No order as to costs.”

¶14

Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner/applicant.

¶15

4. Heard both sides.

¶16

5. We do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal because considering the case of the applicant, the Tribunal held that the applicant cannot claim compassionate appointment as a matter of

¶17

right. However, liberty is given to the department to consider the case of the applicant against available vacancies in the order of seniority of the applicant without discrimination and as per the rules. The compassionate appointment can be given only within the limit of 5% of the available vacancies. Therefore, that order needs no interference by this Court. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶18

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶19

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU _______________ JUSTICE ANIS

¶20

Date: 10.03.2014 AMD

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.5323 OF 2003

¶23

DATE: 10.03.2014

¶24

AMD

S.Venkanna v. The Superintendent of Post Offices

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Venkanna v. The Superintendent of Post Offices

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

Commissioner and Director of School Education, Vs S. Durga Devi

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs P.V. Rami Reddy

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs a. Venkata Rao

The Government of a.P., Vs K Venkateswarlu

C. Narsimlu Vs The Superintendent of Post Offices

Smt. M. Ramani, Vs The Superintendent of Post Offices,Anakapalli Division