IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.27509 of 2007 Between: V. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. V. Ramaiah, R/o. H.No. 5-4/B-570, NGO's Colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Animal Husbandry Dairy Development and Fisheries Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner and Director of Fisheries, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Shanthi Nagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to and connected with the judgment dated 08-03-2006 of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.110 of 2003 is illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional and consequently set the impugned Memo.No.8768/Fist/ii(3)/2002 dated 18- 11-2002 of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and fisheries Department with all consequential benefits such as financial benefits as selection Grade Typist since 04.09.1973 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.KISHORE RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.27509 of 2007 ORAL ORDER: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed questioning the order, dated 18.11.202, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for brevity “the Tribunal”), dismissing O.A.No.110 of 2003, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking to declare the Memo No.8748/Fish/ii(3)/2002, dated 18.11.2002, of the Government of Andhra Pradesh Animal Husbandry Dairy Development and Fisheries Department, as illegal and consequently to give financial benefit as Selection Grade Typist to the applicant therein since 04.09.1973. 3. Petitioner is the applicant and the respondents are the respondents in the O.A., before the Tribunal. 4. For the sake of convenience, in this common order, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the O.A. 5. The case of the applicant is that he was appointed as ‘typist’ in the second respondent’s office on 06.12.1965; that, at the time of appointment, he was fully qualified, and his probation was also declared after two years, as per rules; that, while so, in the year 1969, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.173, dated 13.06.1969, and G.O.Ms.No.1762 (Food & Agriculture Department), dated 29.11.1971, introducing a scheme for ‘selection grade typist’ in order to provide financial benefits. 6. It is his further case that as he worked continuously for five years and was also fully eligible for the post of selection grade typist, he is entitled to the benefits under the said Government Orders. It is his contention that he was the immediate junior to one K.Ramachandra Rao and P.S.Laxmi; that the said K.Ramachandra Rao was given promotion as Upper Division Clerk on 04.09.1973 and his post was kept vacant and that the applicant, having requisite qualification, is entitled to the post of selection grade typist. But, for the reasons best known, the respondents did not fill up the said vacancy from 04.09.1973 to 14.01.1975 and subsequently promoted one V.Laxminarasamma, L.D.C., as selection grade typist, extending all the financial benefits with effect from 15.01.1975. Therefore, the applicant, during his service and also after his retirement, had submitted representations to the respondents, in this regard, referring to certain orders of the Tribunal in R.P.No.242, dated 28.01.1985, and also relied on an objection raised by the Accountant General with regard to extending financial benefits to the said Lakshminarasamma. 7. Eventually, the first respondent issued Memo, dated 18.11.2002, rejecting to review the case of the applicant stating that it was not possible to verify the seniority, with regard to the selection grade post from 1972 to 1974, after a lapse of so many years, inasmuch as, the review was sought for beyond the prescribed time limit of six months. 8. The Tribunal, having appreciated the merits of the case, found that the initial appointment of the applicant was made in the year 1965 and that when the vacancy of selection grade typist post had arisen in the year 1973, which was allegedly kept vacant till January 1975, it was not challenged, at any point of time, by the applicant. However, after a long lapse of time, another person, by name Lakshminarasamma, was accorded the benefit of selection grade typist. When the applicant allegedly made certain representations, from time to time, incessantly, the impugned Memo was issued on 18.11.2002, which was communicated to him on 30.11.2002, informing that it is not possible to review his case after so many years. 9. The Tribunal further pointed out that since the applicant did not make any objection and approach the Court of law in time or, at least, within a reasonable time, there are laches on his part. 10. We agree with the findings recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned order. It is settled proposition that mere making representations, from time to time, is not sufficient to save the period of limitation in approaching a Court of law. One should approach the Court within the prescribed period or, at least, within a reasonable period. In the instant case, neither of these things happened. Only when V.Lakshminarasamma was promoted, the applicant raised an objection and made representations to the competent authority to review his case. As a matter of fact, virtually, it was not possible for the department to review the case of the applicant, after a lapse of so many years, by picking up the whole records and fixing the seniority. 11. The applicant has requested for fixation of seniority only just before and after his retirement. The cause of action arose in the year 1973, owing to the promotion of one K.Ramachandra Rao to the next category, which should be the appropriate time for the applicant to agitate his grievance for extending the benefit of selection grade typist, but he did not do so. Obviously, his grievance is with regard to extension of benefits to the said V.Lakshminarasamma. 12. The conduct of the applicant, in maintaining absolute silence, cannot be appreciated, which, in our view, should non-suit him. Furthermore, it has been pointed out by the Tribunal that the affected party, by name V.Lakshminarasamma, was not made a party to the said O.A. Therefore, on the ground of non-joinder of proper party, coupled with laches, in our view, the Tribunal had rightly rejected the case of the applicant, and there are no reasons to interfere with the said findings. 13. For the foregoing, the writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 28TH FEBRUARY 2008 SH