Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 31779
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Balaji Medamalli, J
Pujari Mothi – Appellant
Versus
Visakhapatnam Port Authority – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 925 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/S INDUS LAW FIRM
For the Respondents: K SRINIVASA RAO
The doctrine of notional extension of employment applies to accidents occurring during a commute between the workplace and residence, treating such incidents as occurring "while on duty" if a nexus to employment is established, thereby qualifying the family for specific compassionate appointment benefits.
Headnote:(A) Compassionate Appointment - Death of employee - "While in service" vs "While on duty" - An accident occurring to an employee while returning from the workplace to the residence provided by the employer is treated as occurring "while on duty" under the doctrine of notional extension of employment. (Para 17)
(B) Doctrine of Notional Extension of Employment - Commuting between home and workplace - Where a clear nexus exists between the circumstances, time, and place of the accident and the employment, the accident is deemed to have arisen out of and in the course of employment. (Para 17)
Issues: Whether the death of an employee in a road accident while returning home from duty should be treated as death "while on duty" for the purpose of compassionate appointment.
O R D E R
1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“… to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of petitioners for compassionate appointment pursuant to the death of their father late P. Linganna while on duty, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to appoint the 4th petitioner under compassionate grounds by considering the case of the death of petitioners' father as while on duty in accordance with the doctrine of notional extension of employment …”
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
Petitioners herein are the wife, daughters, and son of late P. Linganna (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), who was working as a Senior Inspector in the Cargo Handling Division, Traffic Department, Visakhapatnam. On 11.06.2014, after completion of his shift duties, the deceased, while on his way to the residential quarters provided by the 1st respondent, met with an accident at Tatichetlapalem Signal Junction, Visakhapatnam, and died on the spot.
3. Thereafter, the wife of the deceased submitted a representation dated 21.06.2014 to the respondents seeking compassionate appointment for her son, i.e., the 4th petitioner herein. As the said representation was not considered by the authorities, the 1st petitioner approached the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes. Pursuant thereto, the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes observed that the death of late P.Linganna occurred in a road accident while returning home from duty. Hence, the doctrine of notional extension of employment would apply and directed the 1st respondent to consider the case of the petitioner.
4. In compliance with the said direction, the 1st respondent, vide proceedings dated 03.09.2022, concluded that the death of the deceased happened „while in service‟ but not „while on duty‟, as such, her case will be considered on her turn and as per the guidelines and circulars of the 1st respondent.
5. Aggrieved by that, the present writ petition is filed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for Visakhapatnam Port Authority.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners drawn the attention of this court to the scheme of compassionate appointment vide Office Memorandum, dated 16.01.2013, where in clause 2(A)(a) stipulates that it is sufficient if an employee dies while in service, and there is no requirement to establish that the death occurred while on duty. However, in the instant case, the deceased, while on his way to the residential quarters provided by the 1st respondent, met with an accident at Tatichetlapalem Signal Junction and died on the spot. As such, the same can be treated as the petitioner died „while on duty‟ and not „while in service‟. However, the respondent authorities concluded that the death of the deceased occurred while in service but not „while on duty, and stated that her case for compassionate appointment would be considered on her turn in accordance with the regulations and circulation of the 1st respondent.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner drawn the attention of this court to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in B.E.S.T. Undertaking v. Agnes1AIR 1964 SC 193, 2026:APHC:34603, wherein the relevant portion reads as under:
14. Bombay is a city of distances. The transport service practically covers the entire area of Greater Bombay. Without the said right, it would be very difficult for a driver to sign on and sign off at the depots at the scheduled timings for he has to traverse a long distance. But for this right, not only punctuality and timings cannot be maintained, but his efficiency will also suffer. DW 1 a Traffic Inspector of B.E.S.T. Undertaking, says that instructions are give all the drivers and conductors th
