Y SANDHYA @ D SANDHYA Vs. APSRTC HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Writ Petition is filed by the wife of the deceased employee, who died in harness while working in the respondent Corporation, questioning the inaction of the respondents Corporation in considering her request for arranging gratuity for the services of her husband rendered from 01.07.2002 to 10.10.2005. The petitioner has also sought to make out another grievance on the ground that her case for compassionate appointment under the bread winner scheme of the respondent corporation was also not considered. This non-consideration was assailed as illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the petitioner's husband was appointed a Conductor on 01.07.2000, but later while in service, he died on 10.10.2005. Consequently, the petitioner being the wife and legal heir of the deceased employee, made a representation on 13.12.2005 requesting the respondent Corporation to pay all the terminal benefits due to her husband. When no response were forthcoming, the petitioner was constrained to issue a Legal Notice dated 25.08.09, demanding the respondent Corporation to pay a sum of Rs. 10575/- towards gratuity and also to provide employment to her on compassionate grounds. In response to the legal notice issued by the Petitioner, the respondent Corporation issued a reply dated 07.09.2009 informing her that, as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ("the Act" for brevity), only an employee appointed on regular basis was eligible for gratuity and that there was no provision for compassionate appointment in the Corporation. Dissatisfied with the response given by the respondent Corporation, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no justification on the part of the respondent Corporation on both counts. Insofar as the payment of gratuity is concerned, it is contended by the learned counsel that Section 2-A of the Act deals with 'Continuous Service'. As per the said provision even when there is a cessation of work, which is not attributable to the employee, it cannot be taken as a disruption of service disentitling the employee to the benefit of reckoning the minimum period of five years of service for claiming the gratuity.