THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.10623 OF 2011 27th October, 2011 BETWEEN: C.CHENNA KESHAVULU .. PETITIONER AND UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF MINES, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT., OF MINES, SHASTRI BHAVAN NEW DELHI AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.10623 OF 2011 O R D E R : (PER THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM) Aggrieved by the rejection of O.A.No.149 of 2011 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad by the order dated 15.2.2011, this writ petition is filed by the applicant seeking employment in Geological Survey of India, Hyderabad. The petitioner’s father while working as a Jamedar in the office of the Deputy Director General, GSI, Hyderabad was invalidated on medical grounds pursuant to a medical certification dated 30.7.2003. The petitioner’s father submitted a representation dated 25.2.2004 for compassionate appointment to his son. Thereafter, he was retired on account of medical incapacity. According to the petitioner, his father’s retirement was on medical invalidation. He was circumnavigating the 3rd respondent’s office for the benefit of compassionate appointment but without any response. Eventually, he applied under the Right to Information Act in October, 2010 seeking reasons for non- consideration of his father’s representation dated 25.2.2004. In November, 2010 pursuant to the Right to Information application the petitioner was informed that his name figured in the list of five candidates for Groups C and D posts for appointment on compassionate grounds and that in case of non-acceptance of offer by the already selected candidates his case would be considered. The petitioner therefore approached the Tribunal which rejected the petitioner’s application on the ground of laches and delay viz., that after a long lapse of time from the date of medical invalidation of an employee no mandamus can be issued directing consideration for compassionate appointment. Reliance was placed by the Tribunal on the judgment of Supreme Court in UMESH KUMAR NAGPAL v STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS[1]. The learned Tribunal observed that since the petitioner had not made any representation after the representation by his father on 25.2.2004, nor pursued his case expeditiously for compassionate appointment after his father’s medical invalidation, no case is made out for grant of relief. This court discerns no infirmity in the analysis of the relevant principles or exercise of discretion by the learned Tribunal, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 27th October, 2011. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J TNB THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.10623 OF 2011 O R D E R : (PER THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM) 27TH September, 2011. tnb [1] 1994 SCC (L&S) 930