HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA *****

Between:

J.Anusha .….Petitioner And APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director and two others …….Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 29.01.2024 HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgment ?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals ?

3. Whether Their Ladyship/ Lordship wish to : Yes/No see the fair copy of the judgment ?

____________________

JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI W.P.No.1165 of 2015 DATE: 29.01.2024 Between :

J.Anusha .….Petitioner And APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director and two others …….Respondents For petitioner : Mr. V.Siddhartha Goud, Advocate representing Mr. V.Narasimha Goud, Advocate.

For Respondents : Ms. Sai Mahitha representing Mr. Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC.

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? CITATIONS:

2008 (5) ALD 701 THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI WRIT PETITION No.1165 OF 2015

ORDER:

Petitioner is aggrieved of not providing employment to her on compassionate grounds in view of the death of her husband.

2. Heard both sides and perused the record.

3. The husband of the petitioner, namely J.Subhash was appointed as a Contract Driver in the year 2006 in the respondents-Corporation by following due selection process. He worked continuously till the date of his death i.e., 18.12.2009 in the accident that was caused while driving the passenger bus from Nizamabad to Adilabad. Case of the petitioner is that due to the untimely death of her husband, they lost their livelihood and they are not having any other properties so as to survive with two minor sons, aged 11 and 14 years apart from one minor daughter. Therefore, the petitioner has made an application to respondent No.2 seeking to provide employment on compassionate grounds as a Record Tracer or Conductor, as she fulfills the requisite educational qualifications for the said posts. The said request of petitioner was rejected on the ground that the service of the late husband of the petitioner was not regularized by the time of his death, and hence, Bread Winner Scheme was not applicable to them. Hence, the writ petition.

4. Respondents have filed counter affidavit admitting the service of late husband of petitioner with the Corporation as a Contract Driver. The only contention of respondents is that the services of the persons appointed along with the deceased husband of the petitioner were regularized with effect from 01.01.2010, whereas, the husband of petitioner had died on 18.12.2009 i.e., earlier to the date of such regularization. It is their case that the scheme of compassionate appointment in the respondents-Corporation is applicable only to the dependants of the regular employees died in harness and that the dependants of the casual/contract employees died in harness are eligible only for additional monetary benefits but are not eligible for compassionate appointment as per Circular dated 05.05.2000. It is stated that the issue of extending the benefit of Bread Winner Scheme to the dependants of the Contract Employees is pending with the Government. It is their case that even if the scheme of compassionate appointment for the dependants of the Contract employees comes into force in future, the petitioner herein is not eligible for benefit under such scheme, since the date of death of her husband falls much prior to the cut-off date i.e., 03.08.2013, from which date, the scheme was sought to be implemented. Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. The un-disputed facts of the case are that the husband of petitioner was appointed in the respondents-Corporation as a Contract Driver in the year 2006 after undergoing due process of selection. It is also not in dispute that he died on 18.12.2009 in the accident caused while on duty, driving the bus from Nizamabad to Adilabad. The claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejecte