Dismissed

B. Umamaheswari, v. The Union of India

Telangana HC27 Jan 2014WP/38138/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a Writ Petition challenging the dismissal of an application seeking to condone a 1302-day delay in contesting a rejection of a compassionate appointment claim. The Court rejected the petitioner's plea of necessity for male assistance, noting the 20-year lapse since the employee's death, and found no merit in the case.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications shall be closed.

B. Umamaheswari, Vs The Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.38138 of 2013

¶4

ORDER:

¶5

(Per Hon’ble Sri RSR, J.)

¶6

1 Aggrieved by the order, dated 14.12.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad in M.A.No.829 of 2011 in O.A.SR.No.4240 of 2011, the applicant therein has filed this Writ Petition.

¶7

2 By the aforesaid order, the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 1302 days in filing the O.A, assailing the order of the authorities dated 26.04.2007 by which the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected.

¶8

3 Petitioner/applicant claims to be the daughter of one late B.Veeraswamy, who died while in service, on 16.12.1992. After the death of her father, the petitioner/applicant made a representation, dated 30.05.1994 to the authorities, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, which was rejected by order, dated 18.07.1994. Thereafter, seeking succession certificate, the petitioner along with her grandmother filed O.P.No.391 of 1993 before the competent civil Court, which was disposed of by order, dated 15.12.1998. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter she had been

¶9

representing to the authorities to extend the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds. Ultimately, the authorities issued letter dated, 26.04.2007 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Questioning the said order, the petitioner approached the Tribunal in the year 2011 and as there was delay of 1302 days in filing the O.A, she filed M.A.No.829 of 2011 seeking to condone the said delay. The respondents contested the said application before the Tribunal by filing counter stating that there was also an order of rejection earlier, which was not under challenge and that there are no grounds for condoning the abnormal and inordinate delay of 1302 days in filing the O.A. The Tribunal, by impugned order, dismissed M.A.No.829 of 2011 observing that sufficient reasons are not indicated to condone the said delay.

¶10

4 In this Writ Petition also, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner had been pursuing the matter before the authorities and as she is not having any male assistance to pursue the litigation, the delay had occurred in filing the O.A.

¶11

5 It is not in dispute that immediately after the death of her father, the petitioner made a representation to the authorities as early as on 30.05.1994 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, which was rejected by the authorities by order, dated 18.07.1994. Further, having pursued the matter along with her grandmother, in O.P.No.391 of 1993 before the civil Court

¶12

in succession proceedings, it is very difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner that the delay occurred on account of lack of male assistance to pursue the legal proceedings. In any event, as the father of the petitioner died as early as in the year 1992, petitioner cannot seek appointment on compassionate grounds after the lapse of nearly 20 years, by filing an application in the year 2011, questioning the order passed by the authorities in the year 2007. The object of the scheme of appointment on compassionate grounds is to rescue the members of the bereaved family immediately after the death of the employee but, having regard to the long lapse of 20 years of time after the death of the employee and having regard to the reasons assigned by the Tribunal in the impugned order, we do not find any merit in this Writ Petition so as to interfere with the same.

¶13

6 The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶14

_______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.

¶15

___________________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J.

¶16

Date: 27.01.2014 Kvsn*

B. Umamaheswari, v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Umamaheswari, v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Afsar Jahan Begum, Vs Union of India

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs P.Venkata Svvamy

M. Surender, S/o. M. Shiva Reddy Vs L. Sridhar Reddy, S/o. L. Krishna Reddy

P. Annaji Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Dr. Syed Arifuddin

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs B. Vani, D/o. Chandra Sekhar