IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Battu Devanand, J.
K. Michael Johnson S/o Late K.C. David Nelson – Petitioner
Versus
The A.P. Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2368 of 2016
Decided On : 27-01-2021
A.P. State Electricity Board Act - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226, 14 and 16 - Seeking appointment for petitioner on compassionate grounds - Hard cases appointment on compassionate - Father of petitioner died in harness while working as Junior Lineman in A.P mother of petitioner predeceased his father on - At time of death of his father petitioner was aged years and he became orphan due to death of his parents who is aunt of petitioner was appointed as guardian vide orders on file of Additional District Judge - She made an application to 2nd respondent seeking appointment for petitioner on compassionate grounds as petitioner was not eligible for employment at that time - After he attained age of majority and passed Intermediate she made another representation on reminding respondents to provide employment to petitioner on compassionate grounds - Aggrieved by same present writ petition is filed
Finding of court: This Court already noted that guardian of petitioner made an application within stipulated period in favour of petitioner being a minor at that time and after attaining age of years she made another application on seeking appointment on compassionate grounds to petitioner - Though this Court is having conscious of directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court on which respondents relied in their counter in view of provision provided in Board proceedings delegating powers to relax conditions to Member Secretary of APSEB and of fact that guardian of petitioner has made an application within stipulated time and also made subsequent application after attaining age of majority by petitioner and also taking note of fact that petitioner who turned an orphan due to his father’s death in harness claim of petitioner has to be considered
Result: Miscellaneous applications closed
ORDER :
This Writ Petition has been filed against the Memo No.SE/O/KDP/ADM/PO/CE/F36/D.No.3441/13 dated 20.11.2013 rejecting the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.
2. As per the averments made in the affidavit filed along with the writ petition, the brief facts of the case emerge as under :
(ii) The 2nd respondent issued Memo. No.SE/O/KDP/ ADM/PO/CE/F36/D.No.3441/13, dated 20.11.2013 rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that a minor child of a deceased employee is allowed a maximum time of two years from the date of death of the deceased employee to become eligible for employment under compassionate ground as per Bd’s Memo No.DP/DM II/G1/983/89, dated 21.02.1991. As per the procedure provided under B.P.Rt.No.36, dated 08.05.1996 of the A.P. State Electricity Board, the Member Secretary of the Board is competent to relax the age in respect of minor children and the 2nd respondent ought to have referred the case of the petitioner to the Member Secretary of the Board for consideration under the category of “hard and deserving cases”. The case of the petitioner was rejected by the 2nd respondent without referring it to the 1st respondent, who is the successor to the then Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. In the counter affidavit it was admitted that the father of the petitioner was expired on 05.10.2002 while in service and by the date of his death, he was survived with a son i.e., the petitioner herein, who was aged 6 years. But, the contention of the petitioner that his aunt made an application to the 2nd respondent for compassionate grounds on 05.03.2003 is denied by the respondents stating that she made a representation, dated 14.11.2013 only to the 2nd respondent requesting to provide employment to the petitioner.
It was averred in the counter affidavit that the case of the petitioner has been referred to the Corporate Office of APSPDCL vide Lr.No.661/2016, dated 09.03.2016 for examination. The Corporate Office, Tirupati after examination of the case has communicated vide Memo No.405/2016, dated 28.04.2016 holding that the reply issued by the 2nd respondent on 20.11.2013 holds good and as such, the management has exercised its powers vested as per B.P.Rt.No.36, dated 08.05.1996.
4. Heard Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y. Nagi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the procedure provided in B.P.Rt.No.36, dated 08.05.1996, the Member Secretary of the Board was delegated powers to give relaxation to some “hard cases” in the conditions relating to the age for enter into Last Grade Service to consider the cases of the minor children of the deceased employees. As on the date of the death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner was aged 6 years. The guardian of the
State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar
Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and others
Balbir Kaur vs. Steel Authority of India Limited
Superintending Engineer vs. V. Jaya
Selvi R. Anbarasi Vs. The Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and others
The Superintending Engineer vs. V. Jaya
M. Uma Vs. The Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and others
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.