Ruppu Gannemma vs Vice Chairman and Managing Director, APSRTC and Others

The petitioner is the widow of late R. Simhadri. Simhadri, while serving as Kalasi, died in harness on 20-12-1991. According to the petitioner, she made an application in the year 1992 seeking her appointment to a suitable post on compassionate ground under the scheme framed by the Corporation. The petitioner was directed to produce legal heir certificate. The petitioner produced legal heir certificate on 21-2-1992. According to the petitioner, thereafterwards, she was called to the office of Zonal Engineer (Works), Regional Work Shop, Vizianagaram-wide communication dated 7-2-1992 and accordingly she went and the office obtained her signatures on several papers and the petitioner, being an illiterate, could not know the contents of the documents. The petitioner claimed that she never agreed for receiving additional monetary benefits in lieu of appointment.

According to the respondents, the petitioner could not be appointed to the post of sweeper as there is no provision for appointment to the post of sweeper at that time. The respondents also claimed that the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification as per circular No.PD-64/1988 dated 13-7-1988. Under those circumstances, she was offered additional monetary benefits and, accordingly, the petitioner gave a latter dated 19-5-1993 agreeing to receive additional monetary benefits. On that basis, the works Manager, Zonal Work Shop, Vizianagaram sent a cheque bearing No.253757 dated 3-8-1994 for Rs.37,423/- to the Secretary, A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Hyderabad towards additional monetary benefits payable to the petitioner, vide-his letter dated 29-8-1994 and copy of the same letter was also sent to the petitioner.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would point out that in similar fact-situation this Court directed the Zonal Manager, Srikakulam to conduct an enquiry as to whether the petitioner therein had signed the letter agreeing to receive additional monetary benefits in lieu of appointment or not and if the enquiry reveals that the petitioner therein signed the letter without understanding the contents of the letter, then to consider her case for appointment to a suitable post and the writ petition be disposed of with similar direction to the Zonal Manager, Srikakulam.

I would have acceded to this request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner but for one development. The management of the A.P.S.R.T.C. has taken a policy decision to ban recruitment to the post of attenders and sweepers. It is not the case of the petitioner that she is possessing any qualification to consider her candidature for any other post. The policy decision taken by the management of the A.P.S.R.T.C. placing ban on recruitment to the post of attenders and sweepers was subject-matter of judicial review before this Court and before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in C.A.8949/1997 on 19-12-1997 found fault with the direction issued by this Court to appoint the dependents to the post of sweeper or attender, on the face of the ban imposed by the management of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by directing the Zonal Manager to hold an enquiry to find out whether the petitioner signed the letter voluntarily or some fraud was committed.

The Supreme Court in Dhalla Ram Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, said that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a method of recruitment, but; is a facility to provide for minimum rehabilitation of the family in distress for relieving the dependent family members of the deceased employee from destitution. It is also well settled that but for the scheme framed by the employer, no dependent of an employee dying in harness can seek appointment on compassionate ground as a matter of right. The petitioner, admittedly, does not possess qualifications to consider her case for any other post except the post of attender or sweeper. Since there is ban on recruitment to these two posts, the Court cannot direct consideration of her case for appointment to these posts.

Added to this, if the petitioner''s version that her signature was obtained on the letter agreeing to receive additional monetary benefits in lieu of the appointment is true, it should have been a total surprise for her when she received a copy of the letter dated 29-8-1994 written by the Works Manager, Zonal Work Shop, Vizianagaram enclosing cheque dated 3-8-1994 for Rs.37,423/- and she should have immediately brought it to the notice of the Corporation or filed a writ petition in this Court seeking for the relief. The petitioner, for the reasons best known to her, has approached this Court after a lapse of three years. Therefore, the writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches also.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.