VICE CHAIRMAN, VIJAYAWADA, GUNTUR, TENALI, MANGALAGIRI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. V PADMA W/O LATE V SRINIVAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition is filed by the Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority, aggrieved by the order passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.3167 of 2012 dated 28.05.2012 (Tribunal for short). The 1st respondent herein invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to declare the action of the petitioners herein, in not considering her case for appointment as an NMR (Last Grade Service employee) on compassionate grounds in the place of her husband who died while working as NMR (Last Grade Service employee) in the office of the 1st petitioner, as arbitrary and illegal. The reason why the 1st respondent was denied such a benefit was that the scheme of compassionate appointment was not available to persons who died in harness while working as an NMR.

(2.) BY the order under challenge in this Writ Petition, the Tribunal observed that, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Director of Education v. S. Pushpender Kumar, 1998 AIR(SC) 2230, a Division bench of the High Court, in W.A. No.1119 of 2010 dated 07.12.2011, had confirmed the order of the single judge; and, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Pushpender Kumar1, the 1st respondent was entitled to be appointed as NMR (LGS) on compassionate grounds. The O.A. was disposed of directing the petitioners herein to consider the case of the 1st respondent for appointment as NMR (LGS employee) on compassionate grounds taking into consideration the judgment in W.A. No.1119 of 2010 dated 07.12.2011.

(3.) MRS . K. Mani Deepika, Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, would submit that the 1st respondent has already been provided employment on a petty contract basis; she was not eligible for being extended the benefit of time scale of pay; her husband was not a regular employee, and was only extended the benefit of time scale of pay; he was engaged as NMR on 01.02.1990; he did not complete the required five years of service, for regularisation in terms of G.O.Ms. No.212 dated 22.04.1994, by the cut off date of 25.11.1993; he was, therefore, not entitled for regularisation; the scheme of compassionate appointment is applicable only to regular employees, and not to NMR employees; merely because time scale of pay was granted, did not make an NMR employee a regular employee; his dependents are not entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds; and the Tribunal had erred in directing that the case of the 1st respondent be considered for compassionate appointment.