Mohd. Zaheer Ahmed Vs. Depot Manager, Apsrtc and Others

Mohd. Zaheer Ahmed vs Depot Manager, Apsrtc and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Aug 11, 1999

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/441508

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/441508
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: C.V.N. Sastri, J.
Decided On: Aug 11, 1999
Case Number: WP No. 33835 of 1998
Subject: Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service - appointment on sympathetic grounds - Article 16 of Constitution of India - petitioner's father retired on medical ground by permission of Corporation and died after some time - petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground - application forwarded by first respondent to second respondent - no c...

Key legal issue: Service
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Article 16(2)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mohd. Zaheer Ahmed

Advocate Mr. T. Pulla Rao, Adv.

Respondent

Depot Manager, Apsrtc and Others

Advocate Mr. K. Harinath, SC for APSRTC

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Article 16(2)
Reported In: 1999(5)ALD716; 2000(2)ALT400

Excerpt

.....true owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from court. registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render sections 31 and 34 of specific relief act, otiose. -- transfer of property act,1882[c.a. no. 4/1882]. sections 53 & 126: [per court] cancellation of registered sale deed inherent power of registering authority - fraudulent transfer of property sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee held, it is void. true owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from court. registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render sections 31 and 34 of specific relief act, otiose. - it is however contendedthat though as per the circular instructions which were then in force children of employees who retired prematurely on medical grounds were eligible for compassionate appointments, they come under category ii and as such the petitioner could not get selected as per the order of priority for filling up the three vacancies which arose till 1998. subsequently this court as well as the apex court held that the circulars issued by the corporation providing employment to the children of the employees who are retired on medical grounds, retired on attainment of superannuation, retired and subsequently expired or inservice candidates having completed 25 years of service etc......appointment on compassionate grounds as highly arbitrary, illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner for any suitable post on compassionate grounds.2. in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents the facts are not disputed. it is however contendedthat though as per the circular instructions which were then in force children of employees who retired prematurely on medical grounds were eligible for compassionate appointments, they come under category ii and as such the petitioner could not get selected as per the order of priority for filling up the three vacancies which arose till 1998. subsequently this court as well as the apex court held that the circulars issued by the corporation providing employment to the children of the employees who are retired on medical grounds, retired on attainment of superannuation, retired and subsequently expired or inservice candidates having completed 25 years of service etc., are violative of article 16(2) of the constitution of india. in view of the said pronouncements of this court and the apex court the provision for compassionate appointment is now confined only to the children of the employees who died in harness and as such the petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment.3. the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the petitioner has to be considered with reference to the circular dated 15-2-1995 which was in force at the time when he made the application and the subsequent change in the law cannot affect his rights. the learned counsel in support of his contention sought to rely on certain orders passed by this court upholding a similar contention and he has drawn my attention to one of such orders passed by me in writ petition no. 8785 of 1996 dated 13-6-1996. the said order was passed by me following the judgment of the division bench in writ petition no.1611 of 1994 and batch dated 27-11-1995 wherein it was held that the circular.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. The petitioner's father was employed as a driver in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport corporation. On 10-2-1993 the petitioner's father submitted an application to permit him to retire from service on medical grounds. By a letter dated 15-3-1993 he was permitted to retire on the ground of medical invalidation. But unfortunately a few days thereafter the petitioner's father died on 27-3-1993. Thereafter in the month of April, 1993 the petitioner submitted an application for providing him with a compassionate appointment as conductor. The said application was forwarded by the first respondent to the second respondent for consideration vide letter dated 24-9-1993. Thereafter there was no further communication from the respondents. The petitioner after waiting for nearly five years has filed the present writ petition on 3-12-1998 seeking writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in not considering his case for appointment on compassionate grounds as highly arbitrary, illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner for any suitable post on compassionate grounds.

2. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents the facts are not disputed. It is however contendedthat though as per the circular instructions which were then in force children of employees who retired prematurely on medical grounds were eligible for compassionate appointments, they come under category II and as such the petitioner could not get selected as per the order of priority for filling up the three vacancies which arose till 1998. Subsequently this Court as well as the Apex Court held that the circulars issued by the Corporation providing employment to the children of the employees who are retired on medical grounds, retired on attainment of superannuation, retired and subsequently expired or inservice candidates having completed 25 years of service etc., are violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India. In view of the said pronouncements of this Court and the Apex Court the provision for compassionate appointment is now confined only to the children of the employees who died in harness and as such the petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the petitioner has to be considered with reference to the circular dated 15-2-1995 which was in force at the time when he made the application and the subsequent change in the law cannot affect his rights. The learned Counsel in support of his contention sought to rely on certain orders passed by this Court upholding a similar contention and he has drawn my attention to one of such orders passed by me in Writ Petition No. 8785 of 1996 dated 13-6-1996. The said order was passed by me following the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.1611 of 1994 and Batch dated 27-11-1995 wherein it was held that the circular dated 15-2-1995 restricting the provision of appointment on some compassionate grounds only to the children of employees who died in harness and excluding the children of all other categories of employees for the said benefit is onlyprospective in operation and that all cases which arose prior to the said date will have to be dealt with in accordance with the circulars which were in force prior to that date. However, the Apex Court has subsequently clarified the legal position and authoritatively pronounced that the provision for compassionate appointment to the children of all other categories of employees, other than the employee who died in harness, is violative of Article 16(2) of the constitution of India. The law laid down by the Apex Court is binding on me. Though the case is a hard case, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this writ petition and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 1999 Same Parties Mohd. Zaheer Ahmed vs Depot Manager, Apsrtc and Others Same Subject Service Same Judge C.V.N. Sastri, J. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Article 16(2)

Service