Back
2022 Supreme(AP) 229
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
Sk. Abdul Rahim S/o Late Sk. Masthan – Petitioner
Versus
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 23723 of 2020
Decided On : 28-02-2022
For the Petitioner: P. Gangarami Reddy.
For the Respondent: P. Durga Prasad.
Headnote:
Service matter - Appointment on compassionate ground - Order of rejection - Challenged - “Bread Winner Scheme” - Additional monetary benefits - Seeking direction to respondents to appoint petitioner to a suitable post basing on his qualification on compassionate ground - Petitioner's father who was working as driver in the respondent-Corporation i.e. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), died during service period. At that time, petitioner was minor and attained majority. In APSRTC for a period, recruitment on compassionate grounds were stopped and in lieu of employment, “Bread Winner Scheme” (Scheme) was operative by providing additional monitory benefits to family of deceased employee, which could be availed based on willingness only, of family of the deceased - Held, The appointment has to be made considering terms of scheme and in case scheme lays down a criterion that if family of deceased employee gets a particular amount as retiral/terminal benefits, dependent of deceased employee would not be eligible for employment on compassionate grounds - Additional Monetary benefit was received by petitioner's mother and under Circular such families of deceased are not entitled for compassionate appointment - There is nothing on record to substantiate plea of forced exercise to opt for scheme - It is undisputed that petitioner's mother firstly in 2006 and secondly in 2009 gave representations for additional monetary benefits under scheme - Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
1. Heard Sri P. Gangarami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.M.R Balakrishna, representing Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 to 3.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order of rejection of his appointment on compassionate grounds by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings No. LC/876(3)/2018-RM(N) dated 07.09.2020 and has prayed for a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner to a suitable post basing on his qualification on compassionate ground.
3. The petitioner's father who was working as driver in the respondent-Corporation i.e. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (in short APSRTC), died on 25.04.2005 during service period. At that time, the petitioner was minor and attained the majority on 28.08.2006. In APSRTC for a period, with effect from 01.01.1998 to 31.03.2013, the recruitment on compassionate grounds were stopped and in lieu of employment, the “Bread Winner Scheme” (in short the Scheme) was operative by providing additional monitory benefits to the family of the deceased employee, which could be availed based on the willingness only, of the family of the deceased.
4. The petitioner's mother, applied for the additional monetary benefits under the scheme on 11.05.2005 in lieu of employment as the petitioner, her son, was not eligible. When the matter remained pending, she submitted another representation dated 28.07.2009 for additional monetary benefits under the scheme. The Corporation on consideration of representation, paid the additional monetary benefit of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 22.12.2009. All other eligible terminal and death benefits were also paid to the petitioner's mother.
5. After attaining majority and pursuant to the Circular No. W4/140(25)15-POI-AP dated 17.06.2016 the petitioner applied for his appointment on compassionate ground and the petitioner's mother represented before the respondents that she was ready to refund the additional monetary benefit which she received under the scheme.
6. Since the representation remained pending, the petitioner along with his mother filed Writ Petition No. 3483 of 2018 which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.12.2020 directing the respondents to consider and take decision on the said representation considering his case on humanitarian grounds and if possible to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner on refund of the additional monetary benefits by the mother of the petitioner.
7. Pursuant to the order dated 23.12.2020, the petitioner's representation was considered but was rejected by the impugned order dated 07.09.2020.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's mother did not opt for the additional monetary benefit under the scheme, voluntarily, but was forced to do so on the pretext that, otherwise her application shall be closed without any benefit, due to lapse of three years.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the circular dated 17.06.2016 it was mandatory for the respondents to provide employment and not providing the employment is contrary to the circular.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the circular dated 17.06.2016 pursuant to which the petitioner applied for his appointment is not applicable to the petitioner as the families of the deceased, who had availed the benefit of the scheme, are outside its purview. He further submits that the petitioner's mother had received the benefits in lieu of the employment under the scheme voluntarily.
11. I have considered the submissions advanced and perused the material on record.
12. The relevant part of the circular and guidelines dated 17.06.2016 of the A.P.S.R.T.C. which reads as under:
“Besides, the change in the educational qualifications required in view of long ban period, it is proposed to invite applications afresh from the dependents of deceased employees who fulfill the revised eligibility criteria of pass in SSC or its equivale
