Ponna Ajay vs Tirumala Tirupati Devastanam, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9881 AP

                                    1


  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

                WRIT PETITION No. 17 of 2017

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed for not considering

the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment

on the death of the father of the petitioner and

consequential direction to the respondents for releasing

all terminal benefits of the deceased employee.

02. The case of the petitioner precisely is that,

Petitioner's father was joined as NMR in the year 1984

and he was regularised in the year 1991, subsequently,

he was found missing from 04.01.2003 as he has became

mentally unsound. Petitioner's mother was psychiatric

and she became normal and then she represented for

appointment on compassionate grounds and she was

informed that the petitioner's father was removed from

service for his unauthorised absence, vide proceedings

ROC.No.DA5/8672/2005 dated 23.12.2005. Before

passing removal order, a paper publication was

promulgated and as no response for the paper

publication, removal order was passed and the copy was

forwarded to the petitioner's mother, vide Memo Dated

14.05.2007. On receiving such memo, petitioner's

mother submitted a representation dated 21.06.2007 to

the T.T.D Board to set aside the above order and to

provide compassionate appointment in terms of

G.O.Ms.378 GAD Dated 24.08.1999.

03. The said appeal was rejected under proceedings

No.B2/11275/2007 dated 25.10.2007 on the ground

that the appeal has to be filed by the employee/charge

officer but not by the legal heirs of the employee. In so far

as compassionate appointment is concerned, it was

asserted that it cannot be considered before 7 years,

since the missing employee having been removed from

the service, her case was not considered and rejected.

04. The said rejection order was assailed before this

Court by way of present writ petition on the ground that

they have lodged a complaint to the police and the police

registered FIR on 26.05.2006. The police has filed the

final report dated 27.12.2006 before the Hon'ble II

Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Tirupathi, stating

that they have made their best efforts to trace out, but

did not yield any fruitful results and there are no meagre

chances of tracing him and there is no need to keep the

case under investigation for some time.

05. The case of the petitioner is that father of the

petitioner is in the habit of leaving home and letting to

home after some time as such, they are not able to

present the complaint within a reasonable time that there

are no laches on the part of the petitioner or on his

mother and not considering the case of the petitioner is

being arbitrary, illegal and prayed to direct the

respondents herein to consider the case of the petitioner

under compassionate grounds by relying on the

G.O.Ms.378 dated 24.08.1999.

06. It was asserted in the counter that the removal

order was published in the Eenadu newspaper dated

22.09.2005 and also in the A.P State Gazette issued

through CTR, 93/2005, dated 10.09.2005. As per Rule-

42 of APCS & CCA Rules, before finalizing disciplinary

proceedings of removal from service as a last chance, the

petitioner's mother, who is wife of P.Gopaludu, was given

reasonable opportunity, even though the charge memo

was published in A.P State Gazette and Eenadu

newspaper to appear before this respondent. Either the

petitioner or any family member have not appeared

before this respondent and an appeal was filed before the

T.T.D Board to set aside the order and provide

compassionate appointment in terms of G.O.Ms.378

dated 24.08.1999 and the said appeal was rejected vide

proceedings No.B2/11275/2007 dated 25.10.2007.

07. On humanitarian grounds, the respondent

Devasthanam engaged the wife of the deceased on

contract basis through outsourcing agency and allotted

to Accounts Section vide proceedings dated 14.06.2010

and the further contention of the respondent is that

though the appeal filed by the petitioner herein was

rejected on 25.10.2007, the writ petition came to be filed

after lapse of ten (10) years. Therefore, the petitioner is

not entitled for any relief and the writ petition is liable to

be dismissed on the ground of laches.

08. A Full Bench of this Court in P.V. Narayana Vs.

APSRTC, Hyderabad 1 has laid some guidelines by

summarising thus:

(1) Though no period of limitation is prescribed for the writ Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or to file a writ petition, a person aggrieved should approach the Court without loss of time. In appropriate cases, where there is delay and the same has properly been explained with cogent reasons, Court may condone the delay as an exception to meet the ends of justice. But, it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters.

(2) Courts have evolved rules of self-imposed restraints or fetters where the High Court may hot enquire into belated or stale claim and deny relief to a party if he is found guilty of laches.

One who is tardy, not vigilant and does not seek

2013 (4) ALD 386

intervention of the Court within a reasonable time from the date of accrual of cause of action or alleged violation of the constitutional, legal or other right, is not entitled to relief under Article

226.

(3) No hard and fast rule can be laid down for universal application and every case shall have to be decided on its own facts.

(4) There is no inviolable rule of law that whenever there is a delay, the Court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition; it is a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion, and each case must be dealt with on its own facts.

(5) There is no lower limit or upper limit and it will all depend on what the breach of the fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and how the delay arose.

(6) The principle on which the Court refuses relief on the ground of laches or delay is that the rights accrued to others by the delay in filing the petition should not be disturbed, unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay, because Court should not harm innocent parties if their rights had emerged by the delay on the part of the petitioners.

(7) Where there is remiss or negligence on the part of a party approaching the Court for relief after an inordinate and unexplained delay, in such cases, it would not be proper to enforce the fundamental right As a general rule if there has been unreasonable delay the Court ought not ordinarily to lend its aid to a party in exercise of the extraordinary power of mandamus.

(8) There is no waiver of fundamental right But while exercising discretionary jurisdiction Court can take into account delay and laches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ Court.

(9) Though the High Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 in its discretion grant relief in cases where the fundamental rights are violated, but, in such cases also, High Court, to meet the ends of justice, shall refuse to exercise its high prerogative jurisdiction in favour of a party who has been guilty of laches and where there are other relevant circumstances which indicate that it would be inappropriate to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction.

(10) The maximum period fixed by the Legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a civil Court must be brought may ordinarily taken to be a reasonable standard by

which delay in seeking remedy under Article 226 can be measured.

(11) If a person entitled to a relief chooses to remain silent for long, he thereby gives rise to a reasonable belief in the mind of others that he is not interested in claiming that relief. Courts have applied the rule of delay with greater rigor in service matters.

(12) The benefit of a judgment cannot be extended to a case automatically. The Court is entitled to take into consideration the fact as to whether the petitioner had chosen to sit over the matter and wake up after the decision of the Court If it is found that the petitioner approached the Court with unreasonable delay, the same may disentitle him to obtain a discretionary relief. Long Delay disentitles a party to the discretionary relief under Articles 32 and 226 and persons who had slept over their rights for long and elected to wake up when they had the impetus from the judgment of similarly placed persons.

(13) Where during the intervening period rights of third parties have crystallized, it would be inequitable to disturb those rights at the instance of a person who has approached the

Court after long lapse of time and where there is no cogent explanation for the delay.

(14) Where the appellate authority acting within its jurisdiction condoned the delay after being satisfied with the facts stated in relation thereto, the High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution should not ordinarily interfere with the order.

09. Admittedly, no reasons were assigned by the

petitioner herein for approaching this court after lapse of

10 years from the date of rejection order passed by the

appellate authority vide proceedings dated 25.10.2007.

10. Hon'ble Apex court in similar circumstances in

Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. And others V.

Anusree K.B 2 held that the incumbent shall not be

entitled to the appointment on compassionate grounds, if

such an appointment is made after lapse of 14/24 years,

the same shall be against the object and purpose for

which the appointment under compassionate grounds is

provided.

2022 SCC Online SC 1331

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner relied

on the judgment of Composite High Court of Andhra

Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P No. 34859 of 2016, the writ

petition therein was filed for terminal benefits of the

deceased employee on the missing of the employee. The

Hon'ble Court has directed the petitioner therein to grant

all the benefits applicable to the respondents therein. The

said judgment is not applicable to the present facts of the

case.

12. The whole object of granting compassionate

appointment is to enable the family to tide over the

sudden crises resulting due to the death of the bread

earner, who had left the family in penury without any

means of livelihood. Such appointment should therefore

be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress.

When an application is not filed within the time, it shall

be presumed that the writ petitioner and his family was

coped up.

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Vs.

State of Bihar 3 , held that the very object of making

provision for appointment on compassionate grounds is

to provide succour to the family depending on

government employee, who has unfortunately died in

harness. On such death the family suddenly finds itself

in dire straits, on account of the absence of sole bread

winner. Delay in seeking such a claim is an anti-thesis

for which compassionate appointment was conceived.

Delay in raising claim is contradictory to the object

sought to be achieved by the court and tribunal should

not fall prey to any sympathy syndrome, so as to issue

directions for compassionate appointment without

reference to the prescribed norms.

14. Wherein, the present case petitioner's father was

disappeared in the year 2003 and the charge Memo was

got published in the Chittoor District Gazette dated

03.05.2005. Appeal came to be rejected in the year 2007.

Despite lapse of ten (10) years, the present writ petition

came to be filed in year 2017. As there is lapse of ten (10)

2000 (7) SCC 192

years, and in view of judgment of the Full Bench as well

as judgment of the Apex Court, petitioner is not entitled

for any relief.

15. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as

to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

shall stands closed.

___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 28.12.2022

Harin/siva

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

WRIT PETITION No. 17 of 2017

Date: 28.12.2022

Harin/siva