The Corporation's refusal to consider the petitioners' cases for compassionate appointment solely based on the employment of another family member, without verifying whether that member is living with the family or not and the family is in immediate need of assistance there being no other earning member, when they have provided employment in similar cases, is violative of principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the constitution.

T. BHASKAR RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS batch of writ petitions is filed by the petitioners to declare the action of the respondents in not appointing them in the quota reserved for the children of the employees who died in harness, employees voluntarily retired on medical grounds, employees retired and died, employees who retired and employees who have completed 25 years of service in the Corporation, as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and to issue a suitable direction to the respondents to consider their cases. The case of the petitioners is that though circulars are issued by the Corporation from time to time to provide employment to the children of the above categories of employees on compassionate grounds, but the respondent-Corporation refused to appoint them on the ground that other members of the family of the said categories of employees have already been appointed and working in the Corporation.

( 2 ) IT is contended by the Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation that the children of the employees who died in harness have been employed. But/ where a member of the family is already employed in the Corporation even prior to the death of the employee, then such a facility is not extended as the family is having means of livelihood and such person is not eligible for employment on compassionate grounds. It is contended that the children of employees, who died in harness, stand on a different footing than the children of employees of other categories and so the other categories of persons cannot claim the benefit on the same basis. It is further contended that the order dated 31-3-1992 in W. P. No. 11623 of 1991 is no more a good law in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and life Insurance Corporation vs. Asha Ramachandra Ambedkar. More over all the earlier circulars have been withdrawn by the latest Circular dated 15-2-1995, except in case of death of an employee who died in harness, that there are no merits in the writ petitions and that they are liable to be dismissed.

( 3 ) IN view of the above contentions, the point that arises for consideration is whether the children of the employees who, died in harness, voluntarily retired on medical grounds, retired and died, retired and have completed 25 years of service in the Corporation are entitled for consideration of appointment in the andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on compassionate grounds.

( 4 ) TO appreciate the above contentions, it is relevant to refer to some of the provisions, regulations and Circulars issued by the Corporation. Section 45 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Act empowers the corporation to frame the Regulations. In pursuance of such power, the corporation has framed the Service Regulations. Regulation 25 of the Service regulations empowers the Corporation to issue instructions, not inconsistent with the provisions of these regulations, to give effect to and carry out the purpose of these regulations or otherwise to secure effective control over the employees to whom these regulations apply and may, by a resolution, authorise any authority subordinate to it to do so, subject to such conditions and limitations, if any, as may be specified by it. In pursuance of the said powers, the corporation issued Circulars from time to time governing compassionate appointments of the children of the employees.

( 5 ) FOLLOWING G. O. Ms. No. 1005, Employment and Social Welfare (G) department, dated 27-12-1974, memo No. 529/gl/75-8, dated 19-8-1975 and g. O. Ms. No. 687, General Administration (Ser. A) Department, dated 3-10-1977, the respondent-corporation issued Circular No. PD-204/77-78,dated 16-1-1978 to consider the cases of children of the employees who died in harness for appointment on compassionate grounds without reference to the employment exchange. The sum and substance of the Circular is that when an employee dies in harness, leaving his fa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document