IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 2101 of 1999 Between: S.K.Khaleel, H.No.5-2-334, Kothur, Bokkalagadda, Hanumakonda, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its VC & MD, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Regional Manager, Warangal, Warangal District. 3 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Depot Manager, TRS/Warangal, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or directions, directing the respondents herein to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization to the post of sweeper from the date of his initial appointment dt.7-3-94 with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay since 4 the petitioner completed 240 days in Nov.1994 itself and pass such other order as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.GOVINDA RAJULU Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.2101 of 1999 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization to the post of sweeper from the date of his initial appointment dated 07.03.1994 with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay since the petitioner completed 240 days in November, 1994 itself. Brief facts of the case are that, petitioner’s father while working in the respondent corporation died and as such the petitioner approached this Court seeking compassionate appointment and filed W.P.No.12446 of 1992 and this Court vide its order dated 12.07.1993 directed the respondent-corporation to appoint the petitioner as Sweeper in the 1st respondent corporation. As against the said order, the respondent corporation preferred an appeal being W.A.No.140 of 1994 and also sought interim suspension of the order in W.A.M.P.No.272 of 1994. However, a Division Bench of this Court, after hearing both sides, while dismissing the said W.A.M.P.No.272 of 1994 directed the respondents to comply with the order in W.P.No.12446 of 1992, within a period of three weeks. Pursuant to the said order in WAMP No.272 of 1994 dated 10.02.1994, the petitioner was appointed as Sweeper, by order dated 07.03.1994, on daily wage basis. Subsequently, the said W.A.No.140 of 1994 was disposed of by order dated 23.01.199 following the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.1611 of 1993 and batch dated 27.11.1995. It is stated that the petitioner was engaged as Sweeper on daily wage basis by order 07.03.1994 and since then he has been working as such, continuously without any break. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the petitioner has made several representations to the respondent authorities seeking to regularize his service, the respondents have not taken any steps. Hence the writ petition. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it is stated that there is a ban on recruitment of Sweepers in APSRTC. It is stated that there is no clear vacancy of Sweeper and as such the petitioner was appointed as Sweeper on casual basis and he is allowed to continue as such. It is further stated that the petitioner though was appointed as sweeper, in fact, is working as Sramik in Tyre Retrading shop of the respondent corporation. Heard both sides. The very purpose of providing compassionate appointment to the family member of a Government employee dying in harness is to obviate any hardship, including adverse financial difficulties. If no clear vacancy is available as on the date of death of the deceased employee, it is the duty of the respondent corporation to see that one of the members of the family is provided with employment on regular basis as and when such a vacancy arises. May be it is true that there was ban on recruitment in so far as the posts of Sweepers are concerned and there are no existing vacancies of Sweeper. In such a situation the petitioner could have been accommodated in any other suitable post according to his qualification. Instead the respondents have appointed the petitioner as casual sweeper as early as in the year 1994 and even after 15 years of service the respondents have not regularized the services of the petitioner. Though, it is stated that there are no existing vacancies of Sweepers, in my considered view, during the last 15 years of service, so many posts of sweepers must have become vacant. In fact, the respondent corporation itself issued a circular Memo No.P1/684(13)/95-PO (IV) dated 12.12.1995 with regard to recruitment of children/spouse of employee died in harness against direct recruitment posts. It may be apt to refer to the said circular and it reads as under: MEMORANDUM Sub: Recruitment – Recruitment of children/spouse of Employee died in harness against direct recruitment Posts – Appointment of selected persons on regular basis in next available vacancy – Instructions Reiterated – Reg. Ref: 1. Circular NO.64/1988, dt.13.7.1988. 2. Circular No.135/1989, dt.18.10.1989. *** In accordance with the existing instructions, whenever a case of dependent of employee died in harness is considered for suitable post under Bread Winner Scheme, the appointment has to be made on regular basis and in the first available vacancy. The objective of these instructions is to come to rescue of the bereaved family in the shortest possible time. It has come to the notice of Head Office that in some cases the dependents of employees died in harness are being appointed on casual basis. It has also come to the notice that the applications of dependents of employees died in harness are registered and recruitment is being done only along with others in spite of having clear sanctioned vacancies. It is, therefore, reiterated that the case of dependent of employee died in harness shall be considered in accordance with the existing instructions and appointed against the first available vacancy. Once the dependent of employee died in harness is found suitable for the post, appointment shall be made on regular basis, but not on casual basis. These instructions shall be adhered to strictly. From the above memorandum issued by the respondent corporation also it is clear that if an employee died in harness, his dependent should be appointed for suitable post under bread winner scheme on regular basis, but not on casual basis. If for any reason regular vacancy is not available, such dependent shall be appointed against the first available vacancy. When once the said circular is clear and the services of the petitioner are being used as Sramik in Tyre Retreading Section, it cannot be said that there are no vacancies of Sweeper posts. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent authorities are directed to treat the appointment of the petitioner given on casual basis as regular appointment in the respondent corporation with effect from the date of memorandum dated 12.12.1995. However, as the learned Counsel for the petitioner agreed that the petitioner is not pressing for any monetary benefit, the petitioner shall be appointed on regular basis with effect from 12.12.1995, by giving the benefit of notional pay, but is not entitled to any monetary benefits. However, the petitioner shall be paid salary regularly, which is admissible to a regular employee from the date of this order. No costs. ____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 22-06-2009 Gsn.