IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1837 of 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 15/02/2002 in WP NO : 6347 OF 2001 on the file of the High Court.) Between: P.Krishna Kumari w/o Late Ramakrishna R/o Papavinasanam, Gantasaia Mandal Krishna District ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Chairman and Managing Director A.P.S.R.T.C. Musheerabad , Hyderabad 2 The Regional Mangar APSRTC Sathavahana Region, Vijayawada 3 The Depot Manager APSRTC Avanigadda Depot, Avanigadda .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.V.S.R.ANJANEYALU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1837 OF 2002 ORDER: (Per SK,J) Aggrieved by the dismissal of W.P.No.6347 of 2001 by order dated 15.02.2002, the unsuccessful petitioner is in appeal before us. The claim of the appellant is that her husband, while working as a Helper with Staff No.E.83766 in Avanigadda Depot of the respondent-APSRTC, died on 18.03.1990 due to heart disease, leaving behind his spouse, the appellant herein, three daughters and one son. As there was no bread-winner in the family, the appellant submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment. This application was made on 18.01.1991. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the APSRTC in acting upon the same, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.21907 of 2000 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 14.11.2000 directing the APSRTC to consider the representation of the appellant for compassionate appointment on merits. Pursuant to the said order, the APSRTC passed proceedings No.L2/876(59)/2000-RM(V) dated 19.01.2001 stating that the Departmental Selection Committee had verified the suitability of the appellant for any post in the APSRTC as per the existing circular instructions and found that she was not suitable for appointment to any post in the APSRTC on compassionate grounds. The order further records that the Regional Manager, Vijayawada Region, having reviewed the case, observed that she was not suitable for the post of a Conductor as she had passed 8th Class examination during April, 1999 and did not fulfill the requirement of obtaining the requisite qualification within three years from the date of her husband’s death. The Regional Manager, Vijayawada Region, further observed that there was no provision to consider lady candidates for the post of Shramik in view of the specific nature of work involved in the post. Further, recruitment to the posts of Sweeper/Attender was frozen in the organization. Accordingly, the claimant’s claim for compassionate appointment was rejected. It is further stated in the order that the Corporation was making payment of additional monetary benefit for the sake of the dependents of deceased employees in lieu of employment and the appellant was advised to apply for the same. Aggrieved by the rejection of her claim for compassionate appointment, the appellant filed W.P.No.6347 of 2001 specifically stating that several lady employees were working as Shramiks in the APSRTC, giving the instances of Smt.Veeramma and Smt.Anjali who were appointed by the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Vijayawada, himself, being the officer who had rejected her case under proceedings dated 19.01.2001. She also cited the examples of Smt.P.Chinnakoti and Smt.D.Subbulu who were working as Shramiks in Tenali Depot. Stating so, the appellant challenged the rejection of her application on the ground that no ladies were appointed as Shramiks in the organization. The learned Judge dismissed this writ petition stating that there is no provision to consider lady candidates for the post of Shramiks and that as the appellant had filed a writ petition earlier, she could not agitate the same once again in a fresh writ petition. However, the learned Judge did not consider the issue of discrimination raised by the appellant with regard to other ladies working as Shramiks in the APSRTC while her case alone was rejected. We have heard Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent APSRTC. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the rejection of the appellant’s application for compassionate appointment was illegal and unsustainable as the ground cited for the rejection, namely, that there were no ladies working in the posts of Shramik was factually incorrect. Accordingly, the learned counsel submitted that the appellant was entitled to be considered for appointment to any post in the APSRTC. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the APSRTC contended that no compassionate appointment can be provided to the appellant at this late stage keeping in mind the long lapse of time since the date of death of the employee. He placed before us Circular No.PD-52/96 dated 03.05.1996 issued by the Vice- Chairman and Managing Director, APSRTC providing for reservation of 30% posts in the APSRTC for women candidates. Thereafter, Circular No.PD-38/2001 dated 07.05.2001 was issued by the Vice- Chairman & Managing Director of the APSRTC, wherein it was clarified basing on a judgment of this Court, that women applicants were equally eligible for being considered for appointment to the posts of Shramik by direct recruitment including under Bread-winner Scheme. He also drew our attention to the subsequent Circular No.PD-37/2003 dated 26.05.2003 issued by the Vice-Chairman & Managing Director of the APSRTC whereby, taking note of the exemption given by the Government with regard to woman reservation for the posts of Shramik, mechanic and chargeman, instructions were given not to recruit woman candidates for these posts. Admittedly, prior to the exemption granted under Circular No.PD-37/2003 dated 26.05.2003, lady candidates were being appointed as Shramiks and there was no reason as to why the appellant alone should have been refused on the ground that there was no provision for the same. The appellant’s averment that the ladies named by her are working as Shramiks in the APSRTC is not denied even at this stage. In view of the above stated facts, we are of the opinion that the rejection of the appellant’s claim for compassionate appointment, vide proceedings dated 19.01.2001 was wholly illegal. The respondent APSRTC was obliged to consider the appellant’s case for compassionate appointment on merits as per the earlier order of this Court in W.P.No.21907 of 2000. Instead of implementing the said order in true letter and spirit, the APSRTC baldly rejected the applicant’s claim on a wholly unsustainable ground in so far as appointment to the post of Shramik is concerned. However, as pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the APSRTC, compassionate appointment is an immediate measure for alleviation of the financial plight faced by the dependants of a deceased employee due to the loss of the bread- winner. The same cannot be treated as a method or mode of recruitment and the appellant cannot lay a claim for compassionate appointment after a long lapse of 19 years since the death of her husband. As stated by the APSRTC in the rejection proceedings dated 19.01.2001, the appellant would be eligible and entitled to payment of additional monetary benefit, if not already paid, and it would be necessary for her to make an application for the same. Further, in view of the illegal rejection of her claim for compassionate appointment in the year 2001, we are of the opinion that she should be compensated for the same by the APSRTC. Accordingly, the APSRTC is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) by way of compensation along with the additional monetary benefit which she is entitled to. The appellant shall make an application in this regard to the respondent- APSRTC within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of such application, the respondent APSRTC shall make the payment as aforestated within a period of four weeks. The Writ Appeal is accordingly disposed of. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 23rd April, 2009. VGSR