S.Kiranmayi v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation,
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.12970 OF 2016 ORDER:
The case of the petitioner is that her husband was selected for the post of contract driver in the year 2008 by a duly constituted selection committee in accordance with APSRTC Employees (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966 and was appointed as contract driver in Chittoor-I Depot on 08-10-2009. He died while in service on 20-02-2012 leaving behind the petitioner and two minor children. As per the scheme for providing employment on compassionate ground, the spouse/children of the employees died while in service are entitled for compassionate appointment under the Bread Winner Scheme. It is also the case of the petitioner that the dependents of the deceased casual employee who were selected/recruited through proper channel are eligible for payment of additional monetary benefit in lieu of employment from the year 1989.
However, realizing the hardship of the families of the contract employees died while in service, the management has extended the scheme of the compassionate appointment to the eligible dependents of the deceased contract employees by entering into a Memorandum of Settlement under Section 12 (3) of the Disputes Act, 1947 with the APSRTC Employees Union on 03-08-2013. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.2, Transport Department, dated 05-01-2013 according permission to APSRTC to provide compassionate appointments to all the eligible dependents of the employees who died in harness during the period from 01-01-1998 to 31-12-2010. A clarification G.O. was also issued, vide G.O.Ms.No.
15, Transport Department, dated 07-02-2014, clarifying that the scheme is applicable not only to the employees who died, but also have prospective effect. The Corporation also issued a circular on 0103-2014 directing the Recruiting Authorities to continue the process of recruitment under the Bread Winner Scheme for all the future cases also beyond 31-12-2010.
2. The petitioner studied intermediate and submitted an application on 24-02-2012 for providing compassionate appointment. The petitioner was asked to attend the office on 31-08-2015 along with the original certificates for verification. The petitioner accordingly attended the 2nd respondent and submitted all the certificates. The case of the petitioner was considered for the post of
RTC Constable and the petitioner was asked to give her willingness by 25-11-2015. Accordingly, the petitioner gave her willingness for the post of RTC Constable. An interview was conducted by the Selection Committee in the 2nd respondent office on 23-01-2016 and the petitioner was provisionally selected for the post of RTC Constable. She was asked to undergo physical efficiency test, vide proceedings, dated 2301-2016. She attended the same and she was qualified there also. Thereafter, she was directed to undergo medical examination, vide letter, dated 23-03-2016. The petitioner attended the medical examination and was found fit in the medical examination. While so, when the petitioner was informed that the appointment will not be given to her since her husband was only a contract employee at the time of his death, the present writ petition is filed.
3. This Court after adjourning the matter on 19-04-2016, 26-042016 and 02-06-2016, listed the matter on 20-06-2016. On 20-06-2016, the mater did not reach and it is taken up for consideration today. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, no counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. However, learned standing counsel for the respondents submits that the settlement arrived at with the Employees Union under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not approved by the Board of Directors.
4. However, in view of process of selection undergone by the petitioner, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of RTC Constable under compassionate ground in view of the settlement arrived at on 03-08-2013 and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
_______________________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J DATED: 27-06-2016 Hsd