IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.21358 of 2001 DATE:03.12.2010 Between: V.Anasuya …… Petitioner And The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad and others …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.21358 of 2001 ORDER : The petitioner is widow of late V.S.Narayana who died on 17.08.2000 while working as conductor in Salur depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. It is stated that late V.S.Narayana joined in the service of A.P.S.R.T.C in the year 1987. During his life time, V.S.Narayana was kept under suspension on 04.07.1991 on the ground of misappropriation of funds of the Corporation; and after conducting domestic enquiry, he was removed from service by the Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Parvathipuram. Thereupon, V.S.Narayana filed I.D.No.23 of 1998 in Labour Court, Visakhapatnam questioning his removal from service. After enquiry, the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam ordered his reinstatement without back wages and continuity of services. He was reinstated into service on 16.05.2000, and later he died on 17.08.2000 in about three months after his reinstatement. When the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, the Regional Manager, Vizianagaram, A.P.S.R.T.C replied to the petitioner by letter dated 14.12.2000. In that reply, it was stated that the deceased husband of the petitioner worked as casual conductor and that as per circular No.PD-30/2000, dated 05.05.2000 of Vice Chairman and Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C, dependants of the deceased casual employee who died in harness are eligible for compassionate monetary benefit only. It was further informed that in that view of the matter provision of job to the applicant/petitioner in A.P.S.R.T.C is not possible. Questioning the same, the petitioner approached this Court with this writ petition seeking Mandamus against the respondents. 2) In this writ petition, the petitioner did not dispute the fact that her deceased husband worked as casual conductor. The petitioner contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.212 a person who has worked for more than 5 years in the Government Corporation is entitled for appointment as permanent employee. The petitioner’s counsel placing reliance on Eluru Marthamma V. Divisional Railway Manager, S.C. Railway, Vijayawada Division[1], contended that the dependant of a casual labourer acquiring status of temporary servant is entitled for compassionate appointment. In Eluri Marthamma (1 supra), Division of this Court while interpreting para 801 and Rule 2311(3)(b) of Manual of Railway Pension Rules, held that the husband of the petitioner therein who died in harness and who worked as casual labourer acquired status of temporary servant having worked continuously and uninterruptedly for 15 years by the date of his death; and therefore dependants of such employee are entitled to all rights and privileges admitted to temporary railway servants including family pension. The petitioner herein could not show any similar provision in A.P.S.R.T.C Employees Service Rules in order to apply ratio of the said decision in this case. As pointed out earlier, the petitioner’s husband did not put in even 5 years of continuous service as casual conductor during his life time. Therefore, in the absence of any rule and in the absence of entitlement under any scheme of compassionate appointment prevailing in A.P.S.R.T.C, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief in this writ petition. 3) In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 3, 2010 ksh [1] 2000(1) ALT 183 (D.B)