HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.4274 of 2008 Date: April 30, 2010 Between: K. Nagarani, W/o. late Sri K. Kondal Reddy, aged 30 years, R/o. Shankarampet, Medak District … Petitioner And Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribtuion Company Limited, represented by its Chairman & Managing Director, Red Hills, Hyderabad, and two others … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus restraining the respondents from giving effect to letter No.CGM(HRD)/GM(IR&L)/AS(IR)/PO-I/D.No.534/I-I/2006, dated 01-10-2007, issued by the respondents-company and to set aside the same. A consequential direction, to the respondents, is also sought to appoint the petitioner in any cadre on compassionate grounds as per B.P.Ms.No.119 dated 10-02-1982. 2. Facts in nutshell, which are necessary for disposal of the writ petition, are as under: The late husband of the petitioner, Sri K. Kondal Reddy, was appointed as village electricity worker in the erstwhile A.P. State Electricity Board in Shankarmpet village of Medak District. Such appointments were made as per the scheme mooted by the Government and they were being paid consolidated sum through the respective Gram Panchayaths. After working for some years as such, the late husband of the petitioner was appointed as junior lineman on contract basis vide Memo dated 31-12-2002. In terms of the said memo, the petitioner has been engaged for a period of one year with a consolidated remuneration of Rs.3,000/- per month and an agreement was entered into with the petitioner to that effect by the respondents-company, a succeeding company to the erstwhile A.P. State Electricity Board. While working as lineman, on contract basis, unfortunately, the husband of the petitioner died on 15-12-2004 due to electrocution while working on an electrical pole in Medak town. In view of the death of her husband, the petitioner was paid Rs.50,000/- as ex gratia in July 2007. Thereafter, the petitioner made representations to the respondents to extend the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds in any suitable cadre as contemplated under B.P.Ms.No.119 dated 10-02-1982. Two of such representations are dated 07-01-2005 and 11-07-2007. On the ground that the said representations were not considered, the petitioner approached this court in W.P.No.17979 of 2007. A learned single Judge of this court, by order dated 24-08-2007, directed the respondents to consider the said representations and pass appropriate orders. In view of the directions of this court, letter No.CGM(HRD)/GM(IR&L)/AS(IR)/PO-I/D.No.534/I-I/2006, dated 01-10-2007, was communicated to the petitioner rejecting her claim for appointment on compassionate grounds on the ground that there is no provision in the service rules and regulations with regard to compassionate appointment for the legal heirs of contract labour. In the said letter, it is further stated that as the late husband of the petitioner was a not a regular employee, the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered. Questioning the said communication, this writ petition is filed. 3. It is the case of petitioner that the erstwhile A.P. State Electricity Board had framed regulations under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and clause 3(C) of Part-I of the regulations, which are adopted by the respondents-company, empowers appointment of a person on contract basis; therefore, in absence of any distinction between a regular employee and a contract employee in the scheme notified for appointment on compassionate grounds, merely on the ground that her husband was a contract employee, she cannot be deprived of the benefit of compassionate appointment. 4. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the Divisional Manager, APCPDCL, Medak District, on behalf of the respondents. In the counter affidavit, it is admitted that the petitioner was working as village electricity worker and was being paid remuneration through the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayath. It is stated that in the year 1998, claims of electricity workers and casual labour were considered and suitable candidates were appointed as junior linemen on contract basis, but as the late husband of the petitioner was not qualified, he was not appointed as junior lineman on contract basis. However, after incorporation of the first respondent-company, the petitioner was engaged as junior lineman on contract basis for a period of one year on a consolidated remuneration of Rs.3,000/- per month, by entering into an agreement. It is stated that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, contract automatically ceases to end after expiry of one year and candidates shall not have any right to claim absorption in regular vacancies. While stating that the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- as ex gratia, it is averred that as the late husband of the petitioner was not a regular employee of the respondent-company, she is not entitled to the benefit of compassionate appointment in terms of the scheme notified under B.P.Ms.No.119 dated 10-02-1982. 5. I have heard Sri S. Ravindranath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.R. Balarami Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 6. It is submitted by Sri S. Ravindranath, learned counsel for the petitioner, that as much as there is a provision for appointment of contract employees as per the regulations, there is no reason or justification to deny the benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner. It is submitted that as per the scheme notified under B.P.Ms.No.119 dated 10-02-1982, which is adopted by the respondents-company, all employees of the Board who have died in harness leaving their families in indigenous circumstances are entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds; as such it is submitted that the reason assigned by the respondents for rejecting the claim of the petitioner, namely that her late husband was a contract employee, is not valid reason. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of a learned single Judge of this court in the case of Union of India vs. Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru[1]. 7. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri P.R. Balarami Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, that though there is a scheme notified for appointment on compassionate grounds, but such scheme is operative only to regular employees, but not employees who are appointed on contract basis. It is submitted that the late husband of the petitioner was appointed as a junior lineman on contract basis only for a period of one year and he had no right for absorption in terms of the agreement entered into by him with the respondent-Company; hence, the petitioner, who is his wife, will not fit into the scheme for claiming appointment on compassionate grounds. 8. Having regard to the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, there are no factual disputes in this case. The late husband of the petitioner was admittedly appointed as a junior lineman on contract basis, after working as village electricity earlier; vide Memo dated 31-12-2002. A copy of the said memo is filed. It can be seen from the said memo that the late husband of the petitioner, along with several others, was appointed as junior lineman on contract basis. It is stated in the counter affidavit that village electricity workers who worked earlier and who were holding requisite qualification were absorbed into regular service, but as the petitioner was not qualified he was not absorbed, but subsequently after incorporation of the first respondent-company, as the succeeding company of the erstwhile A.P. State Electricity Board, he was appointed as junior lineman on contract basis. The terms and conditions which are enclosed to the appointment order clearly state that the late husband of the petitioner is appointed as junior lineman on contract basis for a period of one year with a consolidated remuneration of Rs.3,000/- per month. I have also perused the scheme notified under B.P.Ms.No.119 dated 10-02-1982, which provides for employment to the deceased employees of the Board, on compassionate grounds. As per the said scheme, which is adopted by the respondents-company, a son or a daughter or spouse of a deceased Board employee, who dies in harness leaving family in indigent circumstances, is eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. The scheme further states that the concession of compassionate appointment shall be allowed in exceptional cases only when the appointing authority is satisfied that the condition of the family is indigent and in great distress. 9. In view of the undisputed facts, the only question, which is required to be considered, is whether the word ‘employee’ used in the scheme, includes a contract employee. Though, in common parlance, when the dictionary meaning is taken, the word ‘employee’ means whoever is entrusted with a work and receives payment. Even a person who is paid daily wages or salary is called an employee. But the question is whether the word ‘employee’ as used in the scheme applies also to casual and contract employees. The very object of the scheme is to see that, if an employee of the Board dies in harness and if the family of such employee is in distress or indigent, as an immediate measure, help is extended. In that view of the matter, the word ‘employee’ used in the scheme notified under B.P.Ms.No.119 dated 10-02-1982, which is adopted by the respondents-company, has to be read in conjunction with the object of the scheme. If the object of the scheme is taken into consideration, it is only for the purpose of providing employment to members of the bereaved family on sudden demise of regular employees who die in harness. In the instant case, the late husband of the petitioner was employed only on contract basis for a period of one year. Even in terms of the conditions of the agreement, it appears that there is clear recital to the effect that the employment of the petitioner is only for a period of one year with a consolidated salary of Rs.3,000/- per month and he had no right for absorption or regularization. In that view of the matter, the late husband of the petitioner cannot be construed as an employee within the meaning of the scheme, for the purpose of extending the benefit of appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds. In the circumstances, the word ‘employee’ used in the scheme is to be taken to mean as regular employee of the Board, keeping in mind the object of the scheme and it cannot be stretched to casual employees, daily wage employees or contract employees. It is also to be noticed that the deceased himself had no right to be continued beyond the period of one year and in the event of death of such employee, the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds is untenable. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment in the case of Union of India, referred above, wherein the dictionary meaning of the word ‘employee’ was discussed and held those who are entrusted with the work of handling parcels, loading and unloading them into the trains on payment of amounts on hourly basis, as employees, but, having regard to the fact situation in the present case, the said judgment would not render any assistance to the petitioner. The word ‘employee’ is to be understood keeping in mind the context in which it is used in the statutes, rules and schemes, wherever it is applicable. Having regard to the object of the same, if the word ‘employee’ is not restricted to regular employees; the same would run contrary to the object of the scheme. In that event, the only meaning that can be given for the word employee would be regular employee, but not contract employee. May be that service regulations framed under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 empower the company to employ persons on contract basis, but, that by itself is no ground to extend the scheme of compassionate appointment to contract employees. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned letter whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected. Though it is an unfortunate case where the petitioner herein lost her husband at a young age, but, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, no relief, as sought by her, can be granted. 10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, in the circumstances, with no order as to costs. ______________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) April 30, 2010 MRR [1] 2009(4) ALD 760