Allowed

A.B. Maheshwar, v. The Apsrtc

Telangana HC4 Oct 2023WP/38759/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a compassionate appointment plea. The petitioner's father was reinstated in service by a Labour Court award dated 1996 but died before the order could be executed. The Court held the father was deemed to be in service, entitling the petitioner to compassionate appointment under G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 05.01.2013.

What did the court decide?

The rejection order dated 11.07.2014 is set aside; respondents directed to consider the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment and pass orders within four weeks.

A.B. Maheshwar, Vs The Apsrtc — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

I i I I I I I i

¶3

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

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 38759 OF 2014

¶8

Between:

¶9

A.B. Maheshwar, S/o. Late Buchanna, Occ: Unemployed, Aged about 31 years, Ryo. 5-53, Yenugonda Village, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The APSRTC, Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Mahabubnagar Region, Mahabubnagar District.

¶14

The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Nagarkurnool Depot, Mahabubnagar District

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in not considering the case of petitioner for appointment under compassionate appointment in pursuance of G.O. Ms. No.2, dated- 05.01.2013 and re.jecting the petitioner's case vide proceedings daled:11 .07 .2014 is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner as per G.O. Ms. No.2, dated: 05.01.2013 to any suitable post.

¶17

¶18

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(NPMP. NO: 48539 OF 2014)

¶19

Petition unde'Section 151 CPC praying that in lhe cir:umslances stated in the affidavit filed in r;upport of the petition, the High Court ma,/ t,e pleased to direct the Respondent to consider the case of petitioner to provide compassionate appointment to any ;uitable post, pending disposal of writ^petitic,n.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. RAVI MOHAN

¶21

Counsel for the Rer;pondents: MS. D. DAI MAHITHA FIEPRE.SI=N:rlNG FOR THOOM SRtN|VAS (SC FOR'r'SRTC)

¶22

The Court made the following: OROER

I I I I I

I I I i I

///

i /

THE HONOURABLE SRJ JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.38759 of 2Ol4

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the second respondent in not considering the case of the petitioner under compassionate appointment in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.2 Transport, Roads & Buildings (TR.II) Department, dated 05.0i.2O13 and rejecting the case of the petitioner vide proceedings dated ll.O7.2Ol4 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently seeks direction to the respondent to appoint the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 05.01.2013 to any suitable post.

¶30

The case of the petitioner is that his father worked in the respondent-Corporation as a Conductor and he was removed from services on 03.02.1992 on certain irregularities. Challenging the removal order, he approached the Labour Court-[II, Hyderabad and filed I.D.No.666 of 1993. The Labour Court, after hearing both sides, has passed the award dated 16.O3.1996 directing the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the father of the petitioner into service with continui$r of service with attendant benefits without backwages by deferring increment as if not accrued. But, unfortunately, the father of the petitioner had died on 30.03.1996 due to heart attack. It is further case of the petitioner that

¶31

¶32

¶33

in pursuance of^'.he award of the Tribunal, the responc.ents have paid Rs.7O,0OO/ - towards terminal benelits to his mother considering as pe tirioner's father while in serrir:e dit'd lhereafter, the petitioner an<[ his mother stated to have been stLbmitted several representations to the respondent-Corporation. As the sarne were not considered, the petitioner hled WP.No.2609B cf 2otl3 and the sarTle \,as disp<rsed by this Court vide order daLte:d 12.12.2013 directing the rer;pondent to consider the case of tho p3titioner for compassionate appointment in terms of G.O M s.llo.2, dated 05.01.20 13. Inr;pite of there being a direction, ttie case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground th;et the father of the petitioner \r,as rot died^q,hile in service. Hence, the present u,rit petitior-r

¶34

Heard Sr i G. Ravi Mohan, learned Sr:nior C)ounsel for the petitioner and Ms. D. Sai Mahitha, learned couns;el representing Sri Thoom SrirLivas, learned Standing Counsel for r':spondent Nos. I to 3.

¶35

[t has :een contended by learned counse. appearing for the petitioner that challenging the remova-l order dat:c O:1.02.1992, his father liled ID No.666 of 1993 before the Lat,our Oourt and the same was allowed vide order dated 16.03.19916 w'.tlt zr direction to

ilr I I l I

reinstate the father of the petitioner into service etc., But, unfortunately, his father had died on 30.03,1996. The award of the Labour Court dated 16.03.1996 has become final. Hence, the rejecting the case of the petitioner is contrary to the award of the Labour Court. He further contends that the respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as his father was deemed to be in service in pursuance of the award dated 16.03. i996.

¶40

Per contra, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents contends that the case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that his father died while not in service. Therefore, the respondents are justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

¶41

This Court has ta,ken note of the submissions made bv the respective Counsel.

¶42

A perusal of the award of the Labour Court in I.D.No.666 of 1993 dated 16.03.1996. The operative portion of the order reads as under:

¶43

'ln the result, the award is passed in favour of the petitioner setting aside the removal order dt.O3.02. 1992 and directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service with attendant benehts without backwages by deferring increment as if not accrued. Necessary orders shall be issued within 30 days of publication of the award."

Admittedly, the award of the Labour Court has be<:ome final. Apart from thal as per G.O.Ms.No.2, datr:d OIj.t)1.2013, the compassionate scheme was formulated by the r,ispondentCorporation to provide employment to the spouses or: <:hildren of the employee who expired while in service in lieu ol ex-gratia. A perusal of tlre rejectiorL order, dated ll.O7.2Ol4, disclosesr that the application of th: petitioner was rejected on the gro'rrrds that as the father of the petitioner was not expired while in servioe ald also pendency of WI'.No.26098 of 2003 before this Cor:rt. l\ perusal of the record further discloses that WP.No.26O98 of 2OO3 vras disposed of by this Cot.rt vide order dated 12.12.2013 holding that the petitioner is ttLe son of an employee who died in harness and directing the rr:spondent to consider the case of ttre'cetitioner for compassionate appointment in terms cf ,G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 05.01.2113, in the event it applies to the case of the petitioner. Tb erefore, as the award of the Labour C.ourt has not been challengr,d by the respondents, the sarne he.s become final. In the said circu nstances, this Court is of the view that the father of the petitioner was an employee of the Corp,rraticn, as had he been alive, he would have been reinstated into st:rvice^{eLs per} the award. Hence, it is c )nstrued that the father of the petiti,:ner was deemed to be in servi,;e. The petitioner consequentty shall br: considered to

¶48

¶49

I I I ) I : II t I I I t

¶50

be a son of the employee who died in harness and he is entitled for compassionate appointment.

¶51

Therefore, the impugned rejection order, dated lI.O7.2Ol4, issued by the second respondent is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 05.01.2013 and pass orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order

¶52

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs

¶53

¶54

NSARI SD/. MOH^{D. SANAULLAH} AS SISTANT^REGITRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION^O ICER

¶55

to,.,, The Vice^{Chairman and Managing Director,The APSRTC, Bus Bhavan,}

¶56

,. ik";.^{#'f'",i31{tt*'c' Mahabubnagar Resion' Mahabubnasar} District.

¶57

lui["itpiiaT{+tyfii!:,xqxL1Hf "Jy3rf:J;habubnasarDs'irc'i 5. One One^{CC to Sri Thoonto Sri ThoonSri ThoonThoon}

¶58

One One^{CC to Sri Thoonto Sri ThoonSri ThoonThoon}

¶59

Two^{CD CoPies}

TJ GJP&I^/

HIGH COURI'

DATED:0411C12023

ORDER

WP.No.38759 ot 2014

fi, g SrAre
J
., 3oo[I 2m :ff
.-, .t
-
- :'JL:

¶67

ALLOWING THE^{WRIT PETITION}

¶68

WITHOUT CC STS.

¶69

f \i>

¶70

I I

A.B. Maheshwar, v. The Apsrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.B. Maheshwar, v. The Apsrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Dharam Sothu,M.Sc, B.Ed, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

V. Maruthi S/o. Hanumaiah, aged about 48 years, Vs The Government of A.P. rep by it Pricipal Secratary

The A.P Diary Deveolpment Cooperation Federation Empl. Assn Vs M.D, Apddcf Ltd., Hyd.

Pittala Ramesh, Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India, Rep. by its Chairman

V.Danaiah, S/o. Raja Mallu, Vs The Honble Labour Court-Iii

T. Selvaraj, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation