High CourtsSingle Bench(1998) 12 AP CK 0022

Syed Faizuddin vs APSRTC, Mushirabad, Hyderabad and another

Andhra Pradesh High Court · Decided on 29 December 1998 · Citation: (1999) 2 ALD 102 : (1999) 2 ALT 41

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.R. Nayak, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 30828 of 1998

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

1 paragraphs · 262 words
1.

When the petitioner''s father also Syed Nazeeruddin was serving as Driver in the establishment of the respondent-Corporation, he was retired from service on the ground of medical invalidation w.e.f. 17-9-1992, and subsequently he died on 25-11-1994, and in between these two dates, there were certain writ proceedings before this Court, where the deceased-father of the petitioner sought directions in WP No.4388 of 1994 to the management of the respondent-Corporation to consider his case for appointment to an alternative post. I do not think it necessary for the Court to refer to the said writ petition and interim and final orders made therein. The simple question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the petitioner has any legal right to seek a writ of Mandamus that the respondent-Corporation should appoint him to a suitable post on compassionate ground under the scheme framed by the Corporation, popularly known as ''Bread-winner Scheme''. It is trite to state that the said scheme is applicable only to the dependants of the employees, who die in harness. The undisputed fact is that the relationship of employer and employee between the deceased-father of the petitioner and the Corporation came to an end on 17-9-1992, the day on which he was retired from service on the ground of medical invalidation. When the father of the petitioner died on 29-11-1994, he was not an employee of the respondent-Corporation, and therefore, the provisions of the scheme providing for appointment on compassionate ground, are not applicable to the facts of this case. The writ petition, is therefore dismissed. No costs.