Dismissed

Shankapuram Sai Teja, v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC24 Nov 2023WP/14879/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of the petitioner's appointment under the breadwinner scheme due to age and height disqualifications. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that compassionate appointment is an exception subject to strict scheme rules and cannot be claimed as a matter of right when eligibility criteria are not met.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Petitioner directed to seek additional monetary benefits from respondent corporation.

Shankapuram Sai Teja, Vs Telangana State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶6

Between:

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 14879 OF 2017

¶8

Shankapuram Sai _Teja,, _S/o. Late S. Venkat Narsaiah (E No.850374) Driver, Aged 20 years, Occ. Student,..Ryo H.No. 3_381/.1,'ACC S-rOr.'ti nJLd, Mancherial, Mancherial (Adilabad) District.

¶9

AND

¶10

.,.PETITIONER

¶11

1 . Telangana_State Road Transport Corporation,, Rep. by its Chairman

¶12

^^{Managing Direclor, Bus BhaGn,Musheerabad, UyOer"bOaO. --} The Regionat Manager,, Regionat Manager,, TSRTC, Adilabad, Adiiabid Distrtct.Adiiabid Distrtct.Distrtct.

¶13

The Regionat Manager,, Regionat Manager,, TSRTC, Adilabad, Adiiabid Distrtct.Adiiabid Distrtct.Distrtct.

¶14

I he Depot Manager,, TSRTC, Adilabad, Aditabad District.

¶15

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia ,..rr,ffil3i"'"tlJ: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or Direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide No.E3/684(1yi S-RM-ADB, dt.13.07.2016 is iilegar, arbitrary and void and consequently set aside the same and further direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the respondents corporation under breadwinner scheme

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPM P. NO:1840 20F 20171

¶17

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 the respondents corporation under breadwinner scheme by suspending the proceedings No.E3/6g4(1)/1S-RM:ADB, d1.13.07.2016 of the 2nd respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KONDADI AJAY KUMAR

¶18

Counsel for Respondents: A SRINIVAS REDDY (SC FOR TSRTC)

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

¶21

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶22

{ .: i i, I I I it i xl I t I I

¶23

i I II I

¶24

i I I i i t i I :. i aI I E

¶25

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO.14879 OF 2017

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

The present writ petition is hled seeking following relief:-

¶29

".... to issue an appropriatc writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings issued by the 2"d respondent vide No.E3/684lll/15RM:ADB, dated 13.07.2016 is illegal, arbitrary and void and consequently set aside the same and further direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the respondents corporation under breadrvinner scheme and to pass .. ."

¶30

The brief facts leading to filing of present writ petition are as under:

¶31

The petitioncr's father was working as Driver in the respondent corporation vidc E.No.85O374 and he expired due to heart attack on 20.06. 1999, while he was in service in the respondent corporation. The petitioner,s mother applied for the post of conductor under breadwinner scheme on 29.O5.2O01. Later, on 2a.O5.2OO4, the addressed another letter to the respondent corporation to granI additional monetary bene[-tts instead of providing job. The respondent corporation uid_e letter, dated 15.O7.2013 sought response from the petitioner,s mother, whether she would opt for job or additional monetary benefits within five (05) days. The petitioner,s mother made an application

¶32

L.1.J ttlP t'o I J819 oJ )t)li

¶33

¶34

on 25.07.2013 [o respondent-corporation to appoint the petitioner under breadwinner scheme. The respondent-corporation sent a call lctter, dated 16.09.2013 and informed petitioner,s mother to appear before the authority on 25.09.2013 at 1O.00 am with a[ relevant documents. However, the petitioner,s mother was not. in a position to join as conductor in the respondent corporation due to health problems.

¶35

The petitioner's mother again made a representatron on 09.04.20 15 to re spondent No.3 to appoint the petitioner under breadwinner scheme in the respondent corporation. The respondents vide impugned proceedings No.E3/6g4(1)/15-RM: ADB, datcd 13.07.2016 rejected the request of the petitioner,s mother for appointment of petitioner in the respondent corporation, however, it is informed that additionat monctary benefits will be provided in lieu of the employment, since the petitioner was not eligible for employment under breadlvinner scheme.

¶36

The petitioner stated that he is only male member in the family and educated and according to him, he is eligiblc for appointment under breadwinner scheme and there is no other male member in the family to support the family. Thercfore, rhe petitioner is seeking direction to set-aside the impugncd

¶37

LNA.J tfP No 11879 of20l7

¶38

¶39

I{{ -a i I i i 1.

¶40

proceedings, dated 13.07 .2016, consequently appoint the petitioner in the respondent corporation under the breadwinner scheme.

¶41

The respondent corporation fited counter, denying the averments made in the writ petition. It is admitted fact that petitioner lather was working as Driver in Adilabad depot of respondents corporation and had expired on 2O.06. 1999. The petitioner's mother submitted an application, dated 29.08.20O 1 to provide employment to her under breadwinner scheme and her application was registered for providing employment under breadwinner scheme in Adilabad region. Subsequently, she submitted another application, dated 09.05.20lS with request to provide employment to her son under breadwinner scheme.

¶42

The respondent corporation given its reply, dated 26.05.2016 and informed petitioner's mother that proposed family member shall fulhll eligibility criteria such as attaining the age of 18 years and possessing the educational qualihcation etc., within the stipulated period of 5 years from the date of death of the employee. [n said letter, it is stated that age of the petitioner was only 7 years, 5 months as on the datc of submission of application and even after taking into considcration o[ relaxation of 5 years from the date of death of employec, the petitioner was not eligible

¶43

LNA.J filP n'o 14E79 of 2017

¶44

¶45

and therefore, advised petitioner,s mother to claim hcr additional monetary benelit in lieu of employment under breadwinner scheme.

¶46

The respondent corporation uide letter, dated 16.09.2O13 informed petitioner's mother to attend the interview along with original documents at RM's Office on 25.09.2013 for her selection to the post of conductor under breadwinner scheme. Accordingly, she attended interview, however since she is under height, she u,as not considered for the said post, as her height was 142 cm against the required height of 146 cm after relaxation under breadwinner scheme. She vvas advised to claim for additional monetary benefits in lieu of employment undcr breadwinner scheme. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that due to health problems, pctitioner's mothcr did not join in the respondent corporation is factually incorrect. lnsofar as, the petitioner is concerned for appointment as conductor even after giving relaxation of 5 years, the petitioncr was only 15 years and 5 months old as against minimum age of 18 years and therefore, this application was not considered.

¶47

Heard Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Srinivas Reddy, learned standing counscl for rcspondents corporzrtion.

¶48

LN,.1,J tl'P \to.11879 o.l 20l7

¶49

¶50

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that non consideration of application of the petitioner's mother under breadwinner scheme is arbitrary and illegal as the scheme is for the benefit and aid of the deceased family. He further submitted that rejection of application o[ petitioner on technicalities is irrational and contrary to settled principles of law. He further submitted that the petitioner is fully eligible, educated and has requisite qualihcations, except for the age. He also submitted that petitioner's mother did not opt for job on the health ground and therefore, the corporation ought to have extended benefit to the petitioner by appointing the petitioner in the respondent corporation under brcadwinner scheme. The petitioner relied upon the judgment ol learned Singte Judge of this Court in W.P.No.38779 of 2017, dated 23. 12.2022, judgment in W.P.No.8614 ot 2Ot2, dated 13.04.2017 and also rhe judgment of this Court in Smt.K.Lakshmi vs. A.P.S.R.T.CI and two others, dated 23.12.2013.

¶51

Per contra, learned standing counsel for respondentcorporation submitted that under breadwinner scheme, dependent of deceased family is provided with employmcnt in the respondent

¶52

I 2013 scc online Ap 815

¶53

I-N) J u P ,'o Ia9lqof 20t7

¶54

¶55

corporation, however, the same is subject to proposed applicant fullilting rhe eligibiliry cntena such as possessing educational qualifications and attaining the age of 1g years etc

¶56

Learned shnding counsel further submitted that petitioner did not disclose the actual flact of rejection of application of petitioner,s mother u,as rejected as she was under height and further, the request of the petitioner was not considered as he did not attain the requisite age and therefore, on both the grounds, the wnt petition rs mrs-conceived devoid of merits and liable to be re3ected He further contended that petitioner,s mother was advised to opt for additional monctary benefits in lieu of employment, however, the petitioner 's mother did not choose for the additional monetary benefit. 13. The point for considcration is whether petitioner is entitled for appointment under breadu,inncr scheme in the light of he not meeting the requisite pre_conditions under breadwinner scheme especially not attaining the minimum required age of lg years as on the date of submission of application_

¶57

Consideration:

¶58

74 Perusal of the pleadings and material placed on record would show that,petitioner,s father was driver in respondent-corporation

¶59

Lt\l,J ll'P .\o lttl79 of 2017

¶60

¶61

¶62

in Adilabad depot and had expired on 20.06. 1999. The peritioner,s mother made an application for employment under breadwinner scheme, however, her candidature was not considered since she did not possess required height. It is also borne by the record that respondent corporation has advised to petitioner,s mother to opt for additional monetary benehts under breadwinner scheme, however, it appears that neither petitioner, nor his mother opted for additional monetary benefits under breadwinner scheme as suggested by respondent-Corporation.

¶63

In alternate, mother of the petitioner submitted an application for employment for petitioner herein, however, his candidature also could not be considered by respondent corporation as he was below the age of 1g ycars, which is minimum age acquired for appointment apart from requisite educational qualiflcation.

¶64

In Smt. K.Lakshmi (supra), the petitioner,s husband, who was working as Driver in respondent_Corporation (ApSRTC) went missing on o3.o4. 1992 and the wire of the driver filed a suit vide O.S.No.267 of 20O6 for a declaration that her husband shall be deemed to have been dead. The Civil Court, eventually, allowed the suit through judgment and decree dated I .0T.2Ci06_ Thereafter, wife of'the-driver made application to the Transport Corporation for

¶65

LNA,J lt P No tt8z9 of2Ot7

¶66

¶67

compassionate appointment In the peculiar clrcumstances, the High Court directcd the Corporation to consider the request of the wife of driver and settle all the benefits and claimed for compassionate appointment. The above case is disguisable on facts and therefore, will not corne to the aid of the pedtioner.

¶68

17 . The other judgmen ts referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for petitione r are, ln fact, relates to delay in submission oI applicat ron for compassionate apporntment. Therefore, the judgments reflerred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on facts and do not apply to the facts of the present case.

¶69

In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryaua and others2, the Hon,ble Supreme Court delineated the scope of claim for compassionate appointment. The Hon,ble Supreme Court held as under:

¶70

;lg,l:+;ir"f,.;.{;fiiiii"Hfixi l;:iry;rif:i,,r,/:*,i;",i 'ff:{#{ffiri:#{#;i{1ffi

¶71

'l⁽¹⁹⁹⁴⁾ 4 scc 138

¶72

I-N,,1,J tt'P t\o.11679 of 2()t 7

¶73

¶74

¶75

Unmindful of this tegal position, some Governments and public authorities have been offering compassionate employment sometimes as a matter oi course irrespective of the ftnancial condition of the family of the deceased and sometimes even in posts above Classes III and IV. That is legally impermissible.

¶76

It ls for these reasous that we have Dot b€ea in a position to -appreciate judgEents of some of the High Courts shich have justified and even airectld compassionate eEployment eithcr as a matter of course or in posts above Classes IU and IV. We are also dismayed to find that the decision of this Court in Sashmtr Goslln :: (1989) ^u::?^ rr oJ I!t@ ATC [(1989] 4 878 : lr989l scc 468 4 : SLR lgae 324 scc (L&sl has been662: rnisinterpreted to the 4polnt of distortion. tie aecision docs not justify coEpassionatc eEploymeot either as a matter of courEe or il employment in posts above Classes m and w." (emphasis supplied)

¶77

In Bhawani prasad Sonkar v. Union of India3, the Hon,ble

¶78

Apex Court held as under:

¶79

'15. Now, it is well settled that compassionate employment is given solely on humanitarian grounds with the "oi. 'oLj..t t, provide immediate relief to the employee.s family ro tide over the sudden hnancial crisis and cannot be tlaimcd as a matter LI right. Appointment based solety on descent is inimical to our constitutional scheme, and ordinarily public emplolment must be strictly orl the _basis of open invitation of^{'applrcations} and comparative merit, in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No other mode of upfoi.,t*"nt i. permissible. Nevertheless, the concept of '.oao."",or,.t. appointment has be€n recognised as an exception to tie general rure, carved out in the interest ofjustice, in certain exigenc"ies, b1. way of a policy of an employer, which partakes the cfiaracter of the service.rules. -That being so, it needs little emphasis that the scneme or the policy, as the case may be, is binding both on the n." :-,ploy:I^{and the employee. Being an exception,tn8} sJ.-. to De stncuy construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve.

¶80

(16) to (I9) )oo(

¶81

Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate mind: ground, the folLwing fr.to." t.,a".-iJ ;'.";rn. ,n

¶82

'^zorr 14y scc zos

¶83

LNA,J tt l' 1J879 of)017 ^o

¶84

¶85

(t) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing schemc, and no discretion as such is lcft u,ith any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the schcme.

¶86

(it) An apptication for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time-

¶87

(iit) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be grantcd as a matter o[ course by way of largesse irrespective of the hnancral condition of the deceased/ incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be-

¶88

(iul Compassionate employmcnt is permissible only to one of the dependants oI the deccased / incapacitated employee viz. parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is Class II[ and IV posts."

¶89

Following the decisions o[ Hon'ble Apex Court in Umaesh

¶90

Kumar (supra) and Bhawani Prasad Sonkar (supra), the Honble

¶91

Single Judge of this Court in B.G.Suresh Babu vs. Principal

¶92

Secretary to Government Health, Medical and Family Welfare,

¶93

Government of Telangana and others4, held as under:

¶94

"7.^{The schemeof compassionateappointment being an} exception to the normal mode of recruitment to public service, it has to receive strict and narrow interpretation. It is wrong to assume that a right is vested in the dependent of ex-employee to seek employment at any timc irrespective of date of demise / retirement on medical grounds and irrespective of the financial status of the family and after long lapse of timc.

¶95

Providing employment under the scheme is intended to tide over the suddcn crisis engulfing the family on account

¶96

2021 SCC Online TS 1582

¶97

L!,4.J It'l','o 11879 oJ 20li

¶98

¶99

¶100

of loss of bread winner/permanent incapacity. It is something akin to frre frghting mechanism. This crisis cannot be treated as continuous. If claim is belated, the very fact that family has survived for a long time without such employment would militate against such claim. It is to be born in mind that there a-re millions of Indians who need succor and their fa_rrilies are also in dire need of employment. Highly educated people are driven to seek low paid class-lV employment out of desperation.

¶101

In the long line of precedent decisions this issue has come up for consideration before Supreme Court. Broad principles that emerge from the decisions of the Supreme Court in rl Umesh Kumar Nogpal v. State of Haryanat; irl Union of India v. Bhagwan Singhp, iit) Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumort; ivl Bhanuani pra.sad, Sonkar v. Union of Indid vl CCE & Customs v. prabhat Singho; vi) MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarthi Sing/tr; vii) SBI v. Surya Narain Tripathyz; viiil Canara Bani v. M. Mahesh Kuman9., are as under:

¶102

"1. The appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception to the normal recruitment procedure to pubhc posts. An exception can not subsume the main provislon.

¶103

The object of granting compassionate employmcnt is to relieve the family of financial constraints on account of untimely demise of bread winner/bread winner developed serious health problem losing his job and to enablc ihe family to tide over the sudden crisis.

¶104

3- Employment under the scheme can be provided only if the employer is satisfied that unless the employmeni rs provided the family will not be able to meet thL crisis and only after assessment of financial condition.

¶105

Posts in class III and class w should alone be offered-

¶106

The consideration for employment on compasslonatc grounds- is not a vested right which can be exercirsed at any time in future-

¶107

6- Claim for compassionate employment should be rnadc within a reasonable time or within the time specified in the scheme formulated by employer. It cannot be claimed and offered after lapse of time and after crisis is over. Delav in secking such a claim is anti thesis to the very objecrirr of the scheme.

¶108

LN,1,J ll/P No.11879 of 20t Z

The schemc and the policy of compassionate appointment is binding both on the employer and the emplovee.

¶113

Being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve.

¶114

Thc claim has to be considered within a reasonable period of time

¶115

lO. The Courts/Tribunals should not fall prey to any sympathy syndrome. The Courts are not supposed to carry Santa Claus's big bag on Christmas eve to disburse the gift of compassionatc appointment to all those who seek a Court's intervention.

¶116

1 I - Consrderation of claims should be to available vacancies. II there are more claims than avaitabte vacancies a fair and transparent selection process should be conducted based on a comparative compassion gradient or on some such lrke criteria.

¶117

An amcliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment. Courts/Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sym pathetic considcration."

¶118

From thc above decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and also

¶119

the decision of learned single Judge of this Court, it is settled principlc of law that compassionate employment is given solely on humanitarian grounds with the sole object to provide immediate relief to the employee's family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The compassionate employment is recognized as an exception to the general rule in certain exigencies as per the scheme or policy of the employcr and such scheme is binding both on the employer and thc employee. Further, the scheme or policy being an exception, the samc f,as io t" strictlv construed.

¶120

LA'A.J ll l' *o 11879 of2017

¶121

¶122

In the present case, the applications submitted by the mother of the petitioner as well as petitioner are rejected on the ground of not meeting the required qualifications i.e ., height of mother was under height and insofar as the petitioner is concerned, petitioner did not attain the majority of 1g years even after relaxing live years from the date of death.

¶123

Conclusion:

¶124

In the light of above factual background, in considered opinion of this Court, the writ petition is devoid of merits and thus, lails and accordingly, dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to seek additional monetary benefits in lieu of employment under breadwinner scheme and respondent_ Corporation shall consider such request of the petitioner and take appropriate decision within a period of thrcc (03) months from the date of receipt of application from the petirioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶125

Pending miscellaneous applications, it any, shall stand closed.

¶126

SD/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGIS RAR //TRUE COPY//

¶127

SECTION OFFICER

¶128

To, 1 The Chairman and Manaoing Director, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Bus Bhavanl M"u"r,""irulo. uviJ.J"-o'l'"

¶129

¶130

2 The Regional Manager,, TSRTC Adilabad, Adilabad Distnct. 3. 4. Jf9 11 LR Copies.^{pepotManager,, TSRrc,} noilaoaJ, foihl;iil#;. 5. I[:,H:fl,?*.BTfilary,^{union of tndia Ministryof Law, Justice and company} 6. na Advoca te s' Association L ibra ry, Hish court Ili.t^,1iil?ft ;l,i,lil?a L7. 9n" 99^{to Sri KondadiAjay} Kumar Advocate IOPUCI 9. ?ff 33 3$;;3^{t''''',s'n'eoov rsc F6"Ci5A;'cixlvocateropUCl} MBC GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2411112023

? L i ll[i J t..-',J .--..,i:rl]
ORDER

¶137

WP.No.14879 of 2017

¶138