P a g e | 1 Date of reserved for orders : 07.08.2026 Date of pronouncement : 19.08.2026 Date of uploading : 25.08.2026 APHC010012532023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE 19th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 925 OF 2023 Between: 1. PUJARI MOTHI, W/o PujariLinganna (Late) Aged about 52 years, R/o.D.No.40-1-24/122, Madhusudhan Nagar, Near Velaginimatha Church,Visakhapatnam- 530008 2. PujariJyothi,, D/o PujariLinganna (Late) Aged about 27 years, R/o. D.No.40-1-24/122, Madhusudhan Nagar,Near Velaginimatha Church, Visakhapatnam -530008 3. PujariVenu,, D/o PujariLinganna (Late) Aged about 23 years, R/o. D.No.40- 1-24/122, Madhusudhan Nagar, Near Velaginimatha Church, Visakhapatnam-530008 4. Pujari Mohan Sai,, S/o PujariLinganna (Late) Aged about 21 years, R/o. D.No.40-1-24/122, Madhusudhan Nagar, Near Velaginimatha Church, Visakhapatnam-530008 ...Petitioners AND 1. VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY, Rep by its Chairman Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh P a g e | 2 2. The Secretary, Visakhapatnam Port Authority Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh 3. The Traffic Manager, Cargo Handling Division , Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam , Andhra Pradesh ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondents: K SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: P a g e | 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 925 OF 2023 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of petitioners for compassionate appointment pursuant to the death of their father late P. Linganna while on duty, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to appoint the 4th petitioner under compassionate grounds by considering the case of the death of petitioners' father as while on duty in accordance with the doctrine of notional extension of employment …” 2. The brief facts of the case are that: Petitioners herein are the wife, daughters, and son of late P. Linganna (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), who was working as a Senior Inspector in the Cargo Handling Division, Traffic Department, Visakhapatnam. On 11.06.2014, after completion of his shift duties, the deceased, while on his way to the residential quarters provided by the 1st respondent, met with an accident at Tatichetlapalem Signal Junction, Visakhapatnam, and died on the spot. 3. Thereafter, the wife of the deceased submitted a representation dated 21.06.2014 to the respondents seeking compassionate appointment for her son, i.e., the 4th petitioner herein. As the said representation was not considered by the authorities, the 1st petitioner approached the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes. Pursuant thereto, the National Commission P a g e | 4 for Scheduled Tribes observed that the death of late P.Linganna occurred in a road accident while returning home from duty. Hence, the doctrine of notional extension of employment would apply and directed the 1st respondent to consider the case of the petitioner. 4. In compliance with the said direction, the 1st respondent, vide proceedings dated 03.09.2022, concluded that the death of the deceased happened „while in service‟ but not „while on duty‟, as such, her case will be considered on her turn and as per the guidelines and circulars of the 1st respondent. 5. Aggrieved by that, the present writ petition is filed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for Visakhapatnam Port Authority. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners drawn the attention of this court to the scheme of compassionate appointment vide Office Memorandum, dated 16.01.2013, where in clause 2(A)(a) stipulates that it is sufficient if an employee dies while in service, and there is no requirement to establish that the death occurred while on duty. However, in the instant case, the deceased, while on his way to the residential quarters provided by the 1st respondent, met with an accident at Tatichetlapalem Signal Junction and died on the spot. As such, the same can be treated as the petitioner died „while on duty‟ and not „while in service‟. However, the respondent authorities concluded that the P a g e | 5 death of the deceased occurred while in service but not „while on duty, and stated that her case for compassionate appointment would be considered on her turn in accordance with the regulations and circulation of the 1st respondent. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner drawn the attention of this court to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in B.E.S.T. Undertaking v. Agnes1, wherein the relevant portion reads as under: 14. Bombay is a city of distances. The transport service practically covers the entire area of Greater Bombay. Without the said right, it would be very difficult for a driver to sign on and sign off at the depots at the scheduled timings for he has to traverse a long distance. But for this right, not only punctuality and timings cannot be maintained, but his efficiency will also suffer. DW 1 a Traffic Inspector of B.E.S.T. Undertaking, says that instructions are give all the drivers and conductors that they can travel in other buses. This supports the practice of the drivers using the buses for their travel from home to the depot and vice versa. Having regard to the class of employees, it would be futile to suggest that they could as well go by local suburban trains or by walking. The former, they could not afford, and the latter, having regard to the long distances involved, would not be practicable. As the free transport is provided in the interest of service, having regard to the long distance a driver has to traverse to go to the depot from his house and vice versa, the user of the said buses is a proved necessity giving rise to an implied obligation on his part to travel in the said buses as a part of his duty. He is not exercising the right as a member of the public, but only as one belonging to a service. The entire Greater Bombay is the field or area of the service and every bus is an integrated part of the service. The decisions relating to accidents occurring to an employee in a factory or in premises belonging to the employer providing ingress or egrees to the factory are not of much relevance to a case where an employee has to operate over a larger area in a bus which is in itself an integrated part of a fleet of buses operating in the entire area. Though the doctrine of reasonable or notional extension of employment developed in the context of specific worshops, factories or harbours, equally applies to such a bus service, the doctrine necessarily will have to be adopted to meet its peculiar requirements. While in a case of a factory, the premises of the employer which gives ingress or egrees to the factory is a limited one, in the case of a city transport service, by analogy, the 1 AIR 1964 SC 193 P a g e | 6 entire fleet of buses forming the service would be the “premises”. An illustration may make our point clear. Suppose, in view of the long distances to be covered by the employees, the Corporation, as a condition of service, provides a bus for collecting all the drivers from their houses so that they may reach their depots in time and to take them back after the day's work so that after the heavy work till about 7 p.m. they may reach their homes without further strain on their health. Can it be said that the said facility is not one given in the course of employment? It can even be said that it is the duty of the employees in the interest of the service to utilize the said bus both for coming to the depot and going back to their homes. If that be so, what difference would it make if the employer, instead of providing a separate bus, throws open his entire fleet of buses for giving the employees the said facility? They are given that facility not as members of the public but as employees; not as a grace but as of right because efficiency of the service demands it. We would, therefore, hold that when a driver when going home from the depot or coming to the depot uses the bus, any accident that happens to him is an accident in the course of his employment. 9. Placing reliance on the above judgment, learned counsel submitted that when an employee, while proceeding from the workplace to his residence or from his residence to the workplace, meets with an accident, such accident would be deemed to have occurred in the course of employment, and therefore, it ought to be treated as having occurred „while on duty‟. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Shakuntala Bai Pandey Vs National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd2, wherein the relevant portion reads as under: “The short question for our consideration is whether the appellant's husband died “while on duty”. The case of the appellant is that her husband, while on way to join the duty, was unfortunately involved in an accident and died. The High Court observed in its order that “she is widow of Shri C.P. Pandey who died while proceeding to join duties” and “Shri Pandey died while he was proceeding to join his duties….” In the facts of this case, it cannot be disputed that the appellant's husband died while he was on way to join his duty. Mr Pai, learned Senior Advocate disputed the fact that the deceased was on his way to join the duty. We do not agree. 2 1995 Supp (3) SCC 680 P a g e | 7 The respondent never challenged the factual statement made before the High Court by way of review. We are of the view that when a workman becomes permanently disabled or dies in an accident while proceeding to the place of his duty from home or returning from the place of his duty to home, he should be deemed to have died or become disabled while on duty. No other view can be taken of such a situation. We, therefore, direct the respondent to offer employment in terms of para 5.8 either to the appellant or to her son by the end of February 1995. Either of them when appointed may join the service of the respondent-Corporation on 1-3- 1995. The appeal is allowed. No costs.” 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on Poonam Devi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd3, wherein the relevant portion reads as under: 7. The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (now christened as “the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923”) is a piece of socially beneficial legislation. The provisions will therefore have to be interpreted in a manner to advance the purpose of the legislation, rather than to stultify it. In case of a direct conflict, when no reconciliation is possible, the statutory provision will prevail only then. 8. Relevant to the discussion is Section 3 of the Act. The relevant extract reads as follows: “3. Employer's liability for compensation.—(1) If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter:” 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on Daivshala v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd4, wherein the relevant portion reads as under: 55. Applying the above principle, we interpret the phrase “accident arising out of and in the course of his employment” occurring in Section 3 of the EC Act to include accident occurring to an employee while commuting from his residence to the place of employment for duty or from the place of employment to his residence after performing duty, provided the nexus 3 (2020) 4 SCC 55 4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1534 P a g e | 8 between the circumstances, time and place in which the accident occurred and the employment is established. 56. The following undisputed facts emerge in this case:— a) The deceased - Shahu Sampatrao Jadhavar was employed with the respondent No. 2-Sugar factory; b) He was employed as watchman and his duty hours on 22.04.2003 was 3 AM to 11 AM. c) It is undisputed that he was proceeding to his workplace when the accident occurred at place which was 5 kms (approx.) from the workplace while the employee was proceeding towards the workplace. In view of the above, considering that the deceased was a night watchman and was dutifully proceeding to his workplace to be well on time, there was a clear nexus between the circumstances, time and place in which the accident occurred and his employment as watchman. The accident having clearly arisen out of and in the course of employment, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad was justified in ordering the claim under the EC Act by his judgment of 26.06.2009. 13. Placing reliance on the above said judgments, learned counsel submitted that the accident occurred while the deceased was returning after completion of his shift duties, and therefore, the same ought to be treated as an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. It is further contended that there exists a clear nexus between the incident and the circumstances in which the deceased was returning after completion of his duties, and as such, the same should be treated as having occurred while on duty. 14. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for Visakhapatnam Port Authority filed counter denying the averments made in the petition and contended that P a g e | 9 petitioners‟ case was not denied for compassionate appointment. As the deceased died while in service, the eligible family member is entitled for compassionate appointment. However, there are several candidates awaiting such appointments, and the appointments will be made subjected to the availability of vacancies and further submitted that the petitioners are not entitled for any out of turn consideration as the employer died while in service, but not while on duty. 15. Learned Standing Counsel also placed reliance on judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in ESI Corpn. v. Francis De Costa5, wherein the relevant portion reads as under: 27. We are of the view that in the facts of this case, it cannot be said that the injury suffered by the workman one kilometre away from the factory while he was on his way to the factory was caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. 16. Placing reliance on the above judgment, learned Standing Counsel submitted that, as the deceased had completed his duties and left the workplace, the accident cannot be treated as having occurred while on duty. Therefore, the 1st respondent had rightly concluded that the death of the deceased occurred while he was in service, but not while on duty. 17. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, legal citations, and the material placed on record. 5 (1996) 6 SCC 1 P a g e | 10 It is not in dispute that the deceased, after completion of his shift duties, was returning to his residence situated in the residential quarters provided by the 1st respondent. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in B.E.S.T. Undertaking v. Agnes (cited supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present case, wherein it was held that an accident occurring to an employee while proceeding from the place of employment to his residence, after completion of his duties, would be treated as an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, having regard to the doctrine of reasonable or notional extension of employment. In the present case also, the deceased met with a fatal road accident while returning to his residence after completion of his shift duties. Therefore, applying the doctrine of reasonable or notional extension of employment, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the death of the deceased is liable to be treated as having occurred „while on duty‟. 18. In view of the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the 4th petitioner for appointment under compassionate grounds treating the death of the father of the 4th petitioner as while on duty. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 19.08.2026 Dvs P a g e | 11 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 925 OF 2023 Date: 19.08.2026 Dvs