AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Harinath.N, J
The petitioners are claiming a direction from this Court to the respondent to either grant compassionate appointment or disbursal of one-time lumpsum payment in lieu of compassionate appointment. A further direction is also sought to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to entertain the claim of the 3rd respondent.
The 1st petitioner is the wife of the deceased employee of the respondents 1 and 2, and the 2nd petitioner is the daughter of the deceased employee. The 3rd respondent is the adopted son of the deceased employee.
It is submitted that the 1st petitioner’s husband retired from service on medical grounds on 18.01.1999 and that he expired on 12.10.2000, leaving behind the petitioners and the 3rd respondent as legal heirs. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent is the adopted son of the deceased employee and the 1st petitioner. It is also submitted that the 3rd respondent was completely irresponsible and was addicted to bad vices. It is submitted that the petitioners filed DVC.No.1 of 2008 against the 1st petitioner and the others, and the same was allowed.
It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners have submitted representations dated 26.09.2011 and 30.01.2012 seeking payment of a lumpsum compensation or providing job to the 2nd petitioner. At the same time, respondents 1 and 2 were requested not to entertain any claims of the 3rd respondent.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondents 1 and 2 were extending benefit of a one-time lumpsum payment to the Master list candidates of Cargo Handling Division in lieu of employment. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the letter addressed to one of the legal heirs of an employee calling upon her to submit the form seeking one-time lumpsum payment in lieu of employment. This Court vide order dated 04.11.2015 directed the respondents 1 and 2 not to release the exgratia amount payable in lieu of compassionate appointment, whatever is payable as determined by the respondents 1 and 2 to be kept in a fixed deposit.
The learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the 1st petitioner was never called upon to submit the relevant application requesting for payment of one-time lumpsum compensation in lieu of employment. It is submitted that only those employees who were found eligible were addressed letters calling upon them to submit the filled-in applications as per the format of the respondents 1 and 2 for claiming onetime lumpsum compensation in lieu of employment.
When the petitioners were found in-eligible they could not have voluntarily submitted an application seeking onetime lumpsum compensation and claimed it as a matter of fundamental right.
It is submitted that the husband of the 1st petitioner made a representation on 20.12.1999 seeking an appointment for the 3rd respondent on compassionate grounds. It is also submitted that the committee scrutinized the case of the 3rd respondent along with 466 applications in the year 1999-2000. The committee did not recommend the case of the 3rd respondent as the records submitted by the husband of the 1st petitioner did not match with the records maintained in the office of the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
It is submitted that Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board was merged with VPT (Visakhapatnam Port Trust) as Cargo Handling Division under the traffic department with effect from 26.09.2008. It is also submitted that the consideration of extension of compassionate appointment or providing onetime lumpsum compensation in lieu of employment was considered for those applicants who were found eligible by the committee.
It is submitted that the details submitted by the husband of the 1st petitioner, along with the application in the year 1999 for providing compassionate appointment to the 3rd respondent, did not match with the records as maintained in the office of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. This would imply that the husband of the 1st petitioner was not on the regular rolls of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for claiming appointment under compassionate grounds. Only the applications of the regular employees who were found eligible by the scrutiny committee were extended the benefit of grant of onetime lumpsum compensation.
Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents, it is evident that the petitioners cannot make out their case seeking compassionate appointment or a onetime time lumpsum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment. On a specific query by this court to the respondents 1 and 2 with regard to the amount which was kept aside under the fixed deposit as directed by this Court on 04.11.2015, it is informed that respondents 1 and 2 are not due payable any amounts, as such no amount was kept aside. It is also submitted by the learned standing counsel that neither the petitioners nor the 3rd respondent are entitled for any amounts from the respondents 1 and 2.
Considering the contentions of the petitioners and the respondents, this court finds no grounds to direct respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioners' claim. The petitioners also could not make out any case for entitling them for compassionate appointment or onetime lumpsum compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment.
With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed without costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.