THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WRIT PETITION No.13318 of 2014 Date: 05.06.2014 Between :
S. Ananda and another .. Petitioners and Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Mushirabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Managing Director and two others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WRIT PETITION No.13318 of 2014 ORAL ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners 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, who is the father of the second petitioner, being an employee of the respondent-Corporation, died in harness on 25.08.2003. The first petitioner, the wife of the deceased workman, representing the other dependants in the family, said to have made a representation to the respondent-authorities on 30.07.2004 seeking compassionate appointment to the second petitioner, the son of the deceased employee. It is evident from the record that on 13.07.2004, initially the respondent-Corporation issued proceedings intimating the first petitioner that she could as well claim the monitory benefit instead on account of the sudden demise of her husband in service.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that having not opted for the said monitory benefit, the petitioners persisted with the request to provide compassionate appointment to any eligible member of their family. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that at the time when the application was filed for compassionate appointment, there was a ban concerning compassionate appointments and as such, it was not considered; and, on the other hand, all such applications as have been filed by people like the first petitioner have been kept aside for future consideration.
The learned counsel has further contended that despite inordinate time lapse the respondents have not considered the request of the petitioners, notwithstanding the fact that the scheme of compassionate appointments has been reintroduced in the Corporation. Resultantly, once again the petitioners approached the authorities enquiring about the fate of their initial application. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners were informed that their application could not be processed and were further asked to submit another application. Accordingly, the petitioners, contends the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted another application on 08.11.2010.
Now, the grievance of the petitioners is that without taking into consideration the earlier application, the respondent- authorities communicated to the petitioners through proceedings dated 19.01.2013 that their application dated 08.11.2010 is belated i.e., five years beyond the date of the death of the employee, and as such, it cannot be considered.
The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation has strenuously defended the stand of the respondent-Corporation and has stated that the petitioners have not acted at the earliest point of time; but on the contrary, having slept over their rights, if any, they have very belatedly gone before the authorities with a request to provide compassionate appointment. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the authorities are strictly bound by the scheme governing the compassionate appointments, and as such, it is not possible for them to consider a belated request, more particularly the one made beyond five years.
Though there is an element of factual controversy as to whether the petitioners submitted their application at the earliest point of time i.e., on 30.07.2004, the fact however remains that despite a clear communication from the respondent-Corporation to the petitioners on 13.07.2004 to claim monitory benefit in lieu of compassionate appointment, they did not evidently opt for it. As such, it can be safely presumed, if not concluded, that all along the petitioners have been requesting the authorities to provide compassionate appointment, rather than having the benefit under the scheme of additional monitory benefit.
It is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation that presently there is a scheme providing compassionate appointment. It is indisputable that in 2003 when the husband of the 1st petitioner died in harness, there was no scope in operation to provide compassionate appointment to the dependent members of the family. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the scheme was reintroduced only in 2013. This statement has not been seriously disputed by the respondent Corporation. Assuming that in terms of the policy that has been reintroduced in 2013, the dependent members of the family were required to make an application on or before 25.08.2008, even by that time, there was no scheme in force. As such, making any application at that time could have been an exercise in futility. The learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has stated that the dependent members of the deceased workman went on applied for compassionate appointment, that all those applications were assigned importance based on the date of their submission and that on the reintroduction of the scheme, the Corporation collated all those applications and obtained the sanction from the Government for 1126 posts. Be that as it may, the petitioners cannot be found fault with, even if it were to be assumed that they did not submit any application on 13.07.2004, it is farfetched to contend that all the other people went on submitting applications in expectation of reintroduction of the scheme. In my considered view, the petitioners, who are admittedly depending members of the family of the deceased workman, cannot be penalized for what can be called there the lack of anticipation. Alternatively, viewed from another angle, the contention of the petitioners that they did submit an application within five years gathers force given the fact that despite a clear communication from the respondent Corporation that they could claim additional monetary benefit in lieu of compassionate appointment, they did opt for it; on the contrary, persisted with their second application for compassionate appointment. It is not the case of the respondent Corporation that any other members of the petitioners’ family have been gainfully employed. A mere subsistence under penurious circumstances with an eternal hope of securing employment in future to secure sustenance could not be stated that the petitioners’ family survived all these years and as well could serve rest of the years.
Given the fact that the petitioners have not claimed any additional monetary benefit and given the further fact that the petitioners went on requesting for compassionate appointment at all material point of time, it is incumbent on the part of the respondent- authorities to consider the application of the petitioner for providing compassionate appointment to the second petitioner, subject to his eligibility, without reference to the alleged delay in their making the application for compassionate appointment.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-authorities to consider the case of the second petitioner for compassionate appointment in terms of the scheme that is being introduced in that regard, without reference to the alleged delay in making the application and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 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: 05.06.2014 va