Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : MOTILAL B.NAIK
Dhanalakshmi - Appellant
Versus
Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Visakhapatnam - Respondent
Decided On : 07-08-94
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT - SPOUSE OF DECEASED EMPLOYEE - QUALIFICATION EXEMPTION - APPOINTMENT AS ATTENDANT - MANDAMUS ISSUED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, the widow of a deceased employee of the respondent-Corporation, sought compassionate appointment on the grounds that her husband died while in service, leaving her and their two minor children without any source of income. Despite possessing an 8th class pass certificate, the respondents denied her a suitable job, citing lack of requisite qualification.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased employee who was the breadwinner. In this case, the petitioner and her dependents were in financial distress and had no other source of income. The court also noted that the petitioner was willing to accept a job as an attendant, for which she possessed the necessary qualification.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a compassionate appointment despite not meeting the requisite qualification for a clerk or typist position? 2. Whether the respondents were justified in denying the petitioner a job as an attendant, considering her 8th class pass certificate?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, which held that compassionate appointments should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The court also referred to the decisions in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and G. Ananta Rajeswara Rao v. Auditor General of India, which emphasized that the only criterion for compassionate appointment is whether the dependent of the deceased person is in financial distress. 2. The court held that the respondents' insistence on a higher qualification for the petitioner was unreasonable, considering the object of the compassionate appointment scheme. The court noted that the petitioner was willing to accept a job as an attendant, for which she possessed the necessary qualification.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner to a last-grade post on compassionate grounds within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
( 1 ) PETITIONER is the widow of the deceased-employee of the respondent-Corporation who had put in around seven years of service in the Corporation till he met with an incident in and around December, 1991. It is stated that he was working at the Gajuwaka City Depot of Visakhapatnam. On the fateful day i. e. on 1-12-1991 he left his house for the purpose of attending the duty at the Gajuwaka Bus Depot. However, he did not return on the same day. The petitioner came to know that her husband was brutally murdered at Narava village by one of the employees of the respondent-Corporation and his close relatives. He left behind his wife, the petitioner, two minor children and old parents. It is stated that the deceased person, the husband of the petitioner was the only bread earner of the entire family and his entire family members are dependent upon his income.
( 2 ) FACED with the sudden development the petitioner seems to have made several representations to the respondent-Corporation seeking appointment in a suitable vacancy on compassionate grounds. The petitioner claims that she has completed 8th class in 1991 in Z. P. P. High School, Bethupalli Gangaram. The minor children of the petitioner were studying in 7th and 5th classes respectively. This apart the old parents-in-law of the petitioner are to be maintained.
( 3 ) DESPITE the representations made to the respondent-Corporation, the respondents have not bothered to accommodate the petitioner in a suitable post. On the contrary, the 1st respondent issued a communication pursuant to the letter of the petitioner on 8-6-1992 vide his proceedings M1/371/3/92-VSK (U) stating that "it is not possible to provide a job under the existing rules and regulations and therefore, it was suggested that she could opt for monetary benefits in lieu of the job. Some how or the other, the petitioner was reluctant to opt for the monetary benefits as she felt that such benefits may not last for more time for her to maintain her children and also the aged parents-in-laws. Under these circumstances the petitioner made a fresh representation requesting the respondents to accommodate her in a suitable post. Pursuant to such request, the respondent have issued a notice dated 18-12-1993 in proceedings. P2/371 (1) /92 requiring her to obtain necessary certificate indicating that she is not working anywhere either in the Central or State Government organisations. Pursuant to the said letter, the petitioner sent a reply on 15-2-1994 along with the certificate issued by the Sarpanch of Gram panchayat of the village to the effect that she is not working anywhere. Despite these requirements being fulfilled, the respondents have not considered her case for providing a suitable job on compassionate grounds.
( 4 ) TO meet these allegations, a counter has been filed by the respondents contending that the petitioner could not be provided with a job as she had not possessed the requisite qualification for considering her case either for clerk or for typist. It is also contended that the husband of the petitioner was initially appointed as a casual driver and later on his services were regularised only in the year 1989. Further disclosure of the counter goes to show that the petitioner was paid monetary consideration as she was entitled to receive as per the regulations of the respondent-Corporation. The further ground urged in the counter is that none of the male children of the petitioner are majors and do not possess requisite qualification, as such they could not be provided an alternative job. In so far as the petitioner s case is concerned, she does not possess the requisite qualification and therefore it was suggested to her to have the monetary benefits in lieu of the job.
( 5 ) THE case of the petitioner from the beginning seems to be that her husband died while serving the respondent-Corporation. At the time of death of her late-husband, she had two minor children and aged parents-in-l
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.