IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P.NO.8246 OF 2004. Date:03.12.2009 Between:- The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Madanapalli Depot and others. ..Petitioners And The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur and another .. Respondents ORDER:- The Officers of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, “A.P.S.R.T.C.”) filed the present writ petition challenging the Award dated 30.10.2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur in I.D.No.285 of 2000. By the said Award, the Labour Court directed the A.P.S.R.T.C. to provide respondent No.2 herein any suitable job within two months. Respondent No.2, the widow of late K.Pullaiah, a driver in the A.P.S.R.T.C., filed I.D.No.285 of 2000 before the Labour Court claiming a job under the A.P.S.R.T.C’s “Bread Winner Scheme”. Her case was that her husband-K.Pullaiah had died on 04.01.1992 in harness and that the A.P.S.R.T.C. was obliged to consider her representation and provide her a job under the “Bread Winner Scheme”. She referred to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.20922 of 1997, whereby this Court directed the A.P.S.R.T.C. to provide a suitable job to her. She further stated that though she was thereafter selected for the post of Conductor, she was found medically unfit for the same and by proceedings dated 27.11.1998, the A.P.S.R.T.C. informed her that she could claim additional monetary benefits in lieu of employment, subject to fulfillment of the conditions prescribed under that scheme. The stand of the A.P.S.R.T.C. before the Labour Court was that respondent No.2 was unfit for the post of Conductor, as she was affected with polio in the right lower limb, and as there was a ban on recruitment to the posts of Sweepers and Attenders, her case could not be considered for appointment to those posts. The A.P.S.R.T.C. reiterated that respondent No.2 could claim additional monetary benefits in lieu of employment. The Labour Court, upon considering the material on record, was of the opinion that even if respondent No.2 was unfit for appointment to the post of Conductor, the A.P.S.R.T.C. ought to have honoured the direction of this Court by appointing her in any other suitable post and accordingly, directed the A.P.S.R.T.C. to provide her the job of an Attender/Sweeper/Booking Clerk or any other suitable job and issue the appointment order within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Award. Aggrieved thereby, the A.P.S.R.T.C. filed the present writ petition. It is contended by the learned counsel for the A.P.S.R.T.C. that respondent No.2 is no longer entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds, keeping in view the fact that the employee, her late husband, died as long back as in the year 1992. Reliance is placed upon the unreported Judgment dated 07.12.2007 of the Supreme Court in V.Dinesh Reddy and Another Vs. B.Udaya Kumar[1] in this regard. Therein, the Supreme Court took note of the fact that the State of Andhra Padesh had dispensed with the scheme of compassionate employment in State Level Public Enterprises in the year 2001 and in lieu thereof, provided for payment of exgratia to the dependants of the deceased employees who died in harness. Accordingly, the Supreme Court modified the direction passed by the High Court to provide appointment in a suitable post to the dependant of the deceased employee and directed payment of additional monetary benefit in lieu of such appointment. In the present case, the facts on record clearly establish that the A.P.S.R.T.C. suffered an order in W.P.No.20922 of 1997 whereby, it was required to provide a suitable job to respondent No.2. This order, admittedly, became final. In such circumstances, it was not proper on the part of the A.P.S.R.T.C. to not consider respondent No.2 for appointment to any other suitable post, notwithstanding her unsuitability for the post of Conductor. The A.P.S.R.T.C’s reliance on the ban on appointments of Sweepers and Attenders under its circular is in the teeth of the earlier order of this Court. However, it is equally well established that compassionate appointment is not a mode of recruitment and even a valid claim for such appointment would lapse over a period of time. By its very nature, such appointment would have to be temporally proximate to the date of death of the employee. In the present case, the husband of respondent No.2 died as long back as in 1992. Such being the circumstances, irrespective of the validity of her claim and the correctness of the A.P.S.R.T.C’s refusal of such claim, it would not be proper for this Court to direct her appointment on compassionate grounds at this late stage. Therefore, the appropriate relief that can be granted to respondent No.2 is compensation by way of the admissible additional monetary benefits, payable in lieu of such employment as per the scheme of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Keeping in mind the fact that respondent No.2 was deprived of employment, notwithstanding the order of this Court in W.P.No.20922 of 1997 and was further driven to approach the Labour Court by way of I.D.No.285 of 2000; and all through, the A.P.S.R.T.C. did not take steps to make over the additional monetary benefits due to respondent No.2 as per its own scheme, it is a fit case for grant of interest on such delayed payment. The A.P.S.R.T.C. shall accordingly pay the additional monetary benefit payable to respondent No.2 as per her entitlement in accordance with the scheme along with interest thereupon at the rate of 6% p.a. from 27.11.1998, when the A.P.S.R.T.C. advised respondent No.2 to avail such monetary benefits. This payment shall be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Award under challenge shall stand modified to the extent indicated above. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _​______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 3rd December, 2009 Note:- Furnish C.C. by one week B/O AMD [1] Civil Appeal No.5770 of 2007