Venkata Ramana Behara v. The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.

Order

In this writ petition, the petitioner, who was denied appointment on compassionate grounds, has approached this Court, questioning the proceedings,

07.05.1999, issued proceedings No.P1/255(16)/98/RM-SKLM.

2. The father of the petitioner, by name Simmanna Behara, was in the service of the 1st respondent-Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’), and was working as a Driver. He had died on 21.10.1995, while in service. Thereafter, petitioner submitted a representation, seeking employment on compassionate grounds as per the scheme notified by the Corporation for compassionate appointment. When his claim was not considered, earlier, he has approached this Court by filing writ petition No.9718 of 1999, and this Court has disposed of the said writ petition on 09.08.1999, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. In response to the said directions, while considering the case of the petitioner, respondents have noticed that another son of the deceased Driver, by name, R.C.S.Behari, is already working as a Driver in

the Corporation in Srikakulam-II Depot, and therefore, they rejected the claim of the petitioner appointment on compassionate grounds.

3. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that his brother by name R.C.S. Behari was appointed in the service of the Corporation on his own merit, and as such, the same is no ground to reject the benefit of compassionate appointment to him. Further, it is stated that the brother of the petitioner had joined in service on 30th August 1987, and that he has separated from the family and is living separately. It is stated that asmuch as the employed brother is not assisting the members of the bereaved family, there is no reason in denying compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, counter affidavit is filed by the Law Officer of the Corporation, wherein, while generally denying various allegations levelled by the petitioner, reference is made the circular instructions issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation in Circular No.PD-64/88, dated 13.07.1988, stating that only one member of the family will be considered for employment on compassionate grounds, if none of the children/spouse of the employee, who died in harness, is not already in employment of the Corporation. It is further stated that asmuch as the brother of the petitioner is admittedly working in the Corporation, the petitioner is not eligible appointment on compassionate grounds. It is stated that rights of the applicants are governed by the scheme only, as such, it is not open for the petitioner to claim appointment as a matter of right.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

6. In this writ petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that as per the scheme notified by the respondents, the spouse and children of the deceased employee are eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the circular instructions issued by the Corporation in Circular No.PD-30/2000, dated

05.05.2000. It is submitted that asmuch as the employed brother of the petitioner is though in service of the Corporation, he is living separately, and in that view of the matter, the petitioner, who is the other son of the deceased, is eligible for employment. In this connection, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of A.Ravi Kumar v. Managing Director, APSRTC [1] .

7. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that the appointment on compassionate grounds, is an exception to the normal appointment, wherein, the rights of the parties are governed by the scheme notified by the organization, and the claim of the petitioner was rejected, as it does not fit into such scheme. The learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India v. Somvir [2] Singh , and also on another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Regional Manager, APSRTC v. M.Sampoornamma [3] .

8. Before I proceed further, it is appropriate to refer to the eligibility criteria as per the scheme notified by the Corporation for compassionate appointment. Consolidating the earlier instructions, which were issued from time to time, in the circular instructions issued in Circular No.PD-30/2000, dated 05.05.2000, comprehensive instructions were issued. The eligibility criteria is notified under Clause III of the Circular, which read as under : “III. ELIGIBILITY : The spouse or one child (either son or unmarried daughter) of employee died in harness be considered for appointment under Bread Winner Scheme provided :-

1. None of the children or spouse of the employee died in harness is already employed elsewhere. in APSRTC either

2. …… 3. …… 4. ……

5. …… 6. ……”

9. Even as per the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is not in dispute that the other brother of the petitioner, who is the natural son of the deceased, is in the employment of the Corporation, and is working in Srikakulam-II Depot. It is the case of the petitioner that his brother was appointed on his own merit, and as such, he is also eligible for appointment. Whether the brother of the petitioner is appointed on his own merit or under any scheme, is irrelevant for the purpose of claiming benefit under the scheme. The intent of the scheme is to protect the members of the bereaved family who are left in financial crunches due to the sudden and untimely death of the employee. When one of the members of the family is in service, the scheme is not extended to the other members, obviously for the reason that the person who is employed, can as well rescue the members of the family in such immediate necessity. Though it is the case of the petitioner that the other son, who was employed, had partitioned and has been living separately, the same is also irrelevant for the purpose of eligibility and fitness of the petitioner into the scheme. Though the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner in the case of A.Ravi Kumar (supra 1) supports his case, but in the subsequent Supreme Court judgment in the case of State Bank of India v. Somvir Singh (supra 2), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while interpreting such similar scheme of compassionate appointment, has held in paras 7 and 10, to the following effect : protects citizens respect “7. Article 16(1) of the Constitution of its citizens India guarantees to all in matters equality of opportunity relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Article against 16(2) discrimination employment or office under the State on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex and descent. It is so well settled and needs no restatement at our end that appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception carved out to the general rule that recruitment to public services is to be made in a transparent and accountable providing opportunity to all eligible persons to compete and participate in the selection Such appointments are process. required to be made on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. Dependents of employees died in harness do not have any special or additional claim to public services other than the one conferred, if any, by the employer. manner request

10. There is no dispute whatsoever that the appellant Bank is required to consider compassionate appointment only in accordance with the scheme framed by it and no discretion as such is left with any of the authorities to appointment dehors the scheme. In our considered opinion the claim for compassionate appointment and the right, if any, is traceable only to the scheme, executive compassionate instructions, rules, etc., framed by the employer in the matter of providing employment for compassionate grounds. There is no right of whatsoever nature to claim compassionate appointment on any ground other than the one, if any, conferred by the employer by way of scheme or instructions as the case may be.”

10. From a reading of the above observations, it is clear that the claim for compassionate appointment and the right, if any, is traceable only to the scheme, executive instructions, rules, etc., framed by the employer in the matter of providing employment on compassionate grounds, and not beyond that. When the scheme framed by the employer simply imposes a clause to the effect that only one child is eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds, provided no other person in the family is employed in the Corporation, whether such child who is already employed, is living with the parents or is living separately, are not the matters for inquiry by this Court. If one other person, who is also the son of the deceased, is in employment, then no other person in that family is eligible for employment. In view of the said clause, asmuch as the employment of other brother of the petitioner in the service of the Corporation is not in dispute, and the rejection order passed by the respondents is in conformity with the conditions of the scheme and such rejection is within the frame work of the scheme, this Court cannot travel beyond the conditions of the scheme, by inquiring into whether the brother of the petitioner though employed, is living with the parents or not. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner is rightly rejected in view of the employment of his other brother, who is undisputedly working Corporation in Srikakulam-II Depot.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. 18th September 2008 ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J To 1 The Vice Chairman-cum-Managing Director, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Srikakulam District. [1] 2000 (4) AL T 506 [2] (2007) 4 SCC 778 [3] 1999 SCC (L &S) 1162