B. Lakshmi Prasanna Kumari v. Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 16, 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. But, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled for Additional Monetary Benefit. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to extend the Additional Monetary Benefit to the dependants of the deceased employee D. Venkata Krishna as expeditiously as possible…
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus holding that the action of the respondents in denying the appointment to the petitioner that her husband died by committing suicide and making classification is in violation of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing proceedings No.PA/756(1)/02-KPM, 30-11-2002 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.P.VINAYAKA SWAMY. The Court made the following Order:
ORDER:
Petitioner is the wife of late D. Venkata Krishna who worked as Conductor in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation and who died by committing suicide on 02-07-2002. The petitioner states that she has studied B.Com and she got a minor daughter aged 4 years. She made an application to the 2nd respondent on 01-11- 2002 seeking appointment as clerk on compassionate grounds. But, third respondent vide his letter dated 30-11-2002 informed the petitioner that as per the letter of the Vice Chairman and Managing Director No.GC2/261/2000-PO-I, dated 07-06-2000, dependants of the employees who committed suicide are not entitled compassionate appointment under bread winner scheme; therefore the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. Questioning the said action of respondents, petitioner filed this Writ Petition.
Respondents filed counter stating that as per the clarification from the Chief Personnel Manager, Hyderabad, vide Lr.No: GC2/261/2000-PO-I, dated 07-06-2000, the case of dependants of employees who committed suicide will not come under the purview of bread winner scheme, as such there is no provision for any appointment to the family members of the deceased employees, who committed suicide; hence the case of the petitioner was rightly rejected. Committing suicide is a voluntary action of that particular person and therefore for the wrong committed by the person who committed suicide, the benefit under the breadwinner scheme cannot be cannot be extended to the dependants of the deceased employees. However, the learned counsel appearing for both the parties stated that the petitioner is entitled for Additional Monetary Benefit. This Court, while considering similar case, in W.P.No.13173 of 2002 on 15-11-2002, rejected the request of the petitioner therein for appointment of the dependants of the deceased who committed suicide, on compassionate grounds, and basing on the counter filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C. with regard to the entitlement of the Additional Monetary Benefit, directed the respondents to extend the said benefit to the petitioner.
Following the aforesaid order in W.P.No.13173 of 2002 and in the factual circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment in terms of the existing scheme of compassionate appointment dependants of the deceased employees who committed suicide and therefore the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds.
Operative part
But, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled for Additional Monetary Benefit. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to extend the Additional Monetary Benefit to the dependants of the deceased employee D. Venkata Krishna as expeditiously as possible, in any case within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ____________________ (V. ESWARAIAH, J) MRR/BCJ To: 1 The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Kuppam Depot, Kuppam, Chittoor District. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kuppam Depot, Kuppam, Chittoor District. 4 Two C.D. Copies.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 16, 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 30 Nov 2002. The bench was V ESWARAIAH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.