Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Y Nookaratnam vs Rastriya Ispath Nigam Limited, on 5 February, 2021
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.2100 OF 2021
ORDER:
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
".... to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the appointment to the dependant i.e., son of the deceased employee late Y.Yellaji Rao, as per Clause (5)(1)(1a)(i) of Employees' Family Benefit Scheme, while declaring that the inaction of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such other order."
2. The petitioner's husband by name Y.Yellaji Rao, Ex. Gen. Foreman (S)-OPRN, LNNN Department, Works Division, Employee No.104139, died while in the employment of 1st respondent organization i.e., RINL, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam. A complaint was lodged with the police by the management.
3. As per the Incident Investigation Report enclosing Joint Examination Report of the respondent organization, said Yellaji Rao, while going to guide shop for collection of rolls and guides, while climbing the staircase to guide shop, was slipped and fell down, complained of neck pain and collapsed on the floor, immediately he was shifted to OHSRC (Emergency Medical Care Unit) from where he was referred to VSGH for further medical examination. After examination at VSGH, the duty Doctor has declared that the inpatient (Yellaji Rao) died. The Committee held that the circumstantial evidence and the documentary 2 evidence brought out above confirm to the requirements under the Special Disability Compensation Rules (IOD Rules) of the company, to consider the case as Injury on Duty (IOD). Accordingly, the Committee recommended consideration of the case of late Y.Yellaji Rao, E.No.104139, General Foreman (S) - OPRN, LNNN Department as a case of IOD and to be covered under Special Disability Compensation Rules.
4. It was further opined that while the said Yellaji Rao was on duty, while going to the staircase, fell back due to slippage of foot accidentally and due to injuries resulting from the accident, he might have died. Thus, the death of Y.Yellaji Rao during employment in the respondent industry is not in dispute and the Commissioner also issued Proceedings, dated 22.06.2019, but employment of the said Yellaji Rao in terms of the scheme referred above is denied and the same is now questioned.
5. During the course of hearing, Sri Y.Surya Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the main petition. Whereas, Sri K.Sarva Bhouma Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Visakhapatnam Steel Plant appearing for respondents requested to issue appropriate direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment of her son, in accordance with the Employees' Family Benefit Scheme.
6. The petitioner made a request for appointment of her son on compassionate ground due to death of her husband Y.Yellaji 3 Rao and in view of the Clause 5(1)(1a)(i) of the Employees' Family Benefit Scheme, in case of death/permanent total disablement of the employee while in service, the dependants of such employee will have the following options to choose:
(1a) Death or Permanent Total Disablement arising out of and in course of employment while on duty/Death or Permanent Disablement arising out of accidents while coming to duty or going back from duty within one hour before or after the end of the shift on normal route of journey between the place of work and normal residence.
(i) One of the dependants (wife/husband, son, unmarried daughter) may opt for employment and he/she may be considered for regular employement to any of the posts mentioned in the Annexure-V depending on age, qualifications, experience etc., The dependants who are not otherwise qualified to be inducted at higher intake points may be provided regular employment in S-1 Grade.
7. Thus, the said scheme permits appointment in the industrydue to death of the employee, but the petitioner is complained that the same was not considered and even in the main petition also the learned counsel requested to consider the appointment of the petitioner's son, consequent upon the death of Y.Yellaji Rao, the employee, in terms of the Clause 5(1)(1a)(i) of the Scheme. The request of the petitioner is limited i.e., to direct the respondent authorities to consider the appointment of the petitioner's son in place of Y.Yellaji Rao as per Clause 5(1)(1a)(i) of the Scheme. The learned counsel for the respondents did raise any serious objection for issue of such 4 direction, on the other hand requested to issue appropriate direction.
8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, directing the respondent authorities to consider the appointment of the petitioner's son as per Clause 5(1)(1a)(i) of the Employees' Family Benefit Scheme, within eight (08) weeks in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date: 05.02.2021 IS 5 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.2100 OF 2021 Dated 05.02.2021 IS