IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD^jH/J^^ AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) i APHC010174492018 i':' i sfi 050 -•■••'TVv •3' / ... y i o. .0,, \N WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 7644 OF 2018 Between: 1. H.Jayalakshmi, W/o.Late H.Lakshmanna, Age- 57 years, R/o.D.No. 18/562, Matkarwadi Street, Adoni, Kurnool District Kurnool. 2. H.Vinod Kumar, S/o. Late H.Lakshmanna, Age- 25 Wo.D.No.18/562, Matkarwadi Street, Adoni, Kurnool District years. ...Petitioners AND 1. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Nehru Bus Stand, APSRTC Bus Complex, Vijayawada, Krishna District 2. The Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Kurnool, Kurnool District 3. The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Adoni Depot, Adoni, Kurnool District. ...Respondent(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the 2nd petitioner’s case for appointment under bread winner ^‘^cheme through proceedings. No .E2/684(18)/2015-RM/KNL dt-11-09-2015 illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Art.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India consequently direct the respondents to provide appointment under bread winner scheme in the interest of Justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to provide appointment under bread winner scheme in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SREEMANNARAYANA VATTIKUTI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI ARAVALA RAMA RAO (SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) The Court made the following: ORDER IS APHC010174492018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 7644/2018 Between: ...PETITIONER(S) H. Jaya Laksmi and Others AND ...RESPONDENT{S) Apsrtc and Others Counsel for the Petltioner(S): 1 .SREEMANNARAYANA VATTIKUTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 7644/2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: “ to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particulariy one in the nature of writ of mandamus deciaring the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the 2nd petitioner’s case for appointment under bread winner scheme through proceedings No.E2/6841 8/2015RM/KNL dated 11.09.2015 is iiiegai, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Art., 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India consequently direct the respondents to provide appointment under bread winner scheme in the interest of justice and to pass ” Heard Sri V.Srimannarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri 2. Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent- corporation. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the deceased who is the husband of the 1®Vetit'oner and the father of the 2'^'^ petitioner, worked as Driver in the respondent-Corporation. He was removed from service in the year 1996 i.e., 18.06.1996. Later in the year 2005, he has approached the Labour Court, Anantapur by filing I.D. No. 72 of 2005; which was allowed directing the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the person as a fresh appointment. Learned Counsel would further submit that accordingly, the respondent-Corporation issued proceedings dated 06.10.2010 directing the individual to join within one (1) week from the date of receipt of the proceedings, failing which, the proceedings will be cancelled. Learned counsel would further submit that because of his ill-health, he could not join the duty 3. 3 and died on 23.06.2012. Learned Counsel would further submit that when the application is made by the 2^^ petitioner seeking compassionate appointment, the said claim was rejected. Being aggrieved to the same, the present petition is filed. Learned Counsel would further submit that after passing the proceedings dated 06.10.2010, the respondent-Corporation has not initiated any action against the deceased, so that, the petitioner No.2 is entitled for compassionate appointment. Refuting the above submissions, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-corporation would submit hat infact, the deceased was removed from the service in the year 1996 and he received all the settlement benefits in the year 1998. Having received the benefits, he has approached the Labour Court, Anantapur with a delay of 9 years, in the year 2005. The learned Labour Court in I.D. No. 72 of 2005 directed the respondent-Corp oration to reinstate him as a fresh candidate. In obedience to the orders passed by the Labour Court, the respondent-Corporation issued the proceedings directing the deceased to join the duty failing which the same shall stand cancelled. In 4. the light of the same, no further orders are required to take any action against the individual who did not join in service. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the individual died on 23.06.2012 and the respondent- Corporation has nothing to do with the death of the individual. The impugned proceedings are issued rejecting the claim of the petitioner No.2 for compassionate appointment and there are no means to interfere in the impugned proceedings. Learned Standing Counsel finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 4 Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materia! on 5. record, as rightly put by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent- corporation, the individual despite receiving the settlement benefits approached the Labour Court with enormous delay of 9 years. In spite of the same, his claim was considered by the Labour Court and passed orders dated 05.06.2009 directing the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the individual as a fresh candidate. The proceedings issued by the respondent-Corp oration dated 06.10.2010 itself shows that in case of failure to join the duty within one (1) week from the date of receipt of the copy of the proceedings, the proceedings shall stand cancelled. In that view, there is no necessity to initiate any action against the individual who has not even joined in the service despite the clause of cancellation is mentioned in the proceedings. Unfortunately, the individual died on 23.06.2012, as the death of the individual has not happened during the course of employment, the petitioner No.2 does not deserve for employment on compassionate grounds. In that view, the impugned proceedings do not brook the interference of this Court while exercising the writ jurisdiction. 6. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand SD/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I closed. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri Sreemannarayana Vattikuti, Advocate 2. One CC to Sri Aravala Rama Rao (SC for APSRTC [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies [OPUC] KKAC) Advocate TF - .«> HIGH COURT DATED;25/06/2025 ORDER WP 7644/2018 ^ 0 5 JUL 2025 DISMISSING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS