THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.16148 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Vilas v. Afzulpurkar) The petitioners herein are the applicants in O.A.No.6915 of 2009 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 30.6.2009 whereunder the Tribunal declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that the claim in the O.A. was highly belated. The petitioners state that they are retired Teachers and while in service they participated in Literacy programme conducted during summer vacation 1991, but, however, they were not given the benefit of work done by them in the said summer vacation. The petitioners contended that they made several representations to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nellore whereupon on 3.3.1999 orders were passed to grant 25 days of earned leave to the petitioners. The petitioners stated that thereafter the matter has been pending and no final decision is taken. The petitioners also rely upon the proceedings of the District Educational Officer, Nellore in Pro.No.1922/A6/2007, dated 12.5.2007, whereunder their case was recommended. Since no action is taken in spite of the said recommendation of the District Educational Officer for encashment of said earned leave amount, the petitioners approached the Tribunal by the aforesaid O.A. Under the impugned order, the Tribunal has dismissed the O.A. on the ground that the claim of the petitioners is highly belated and cannot be entertained. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Education. It is to be noticed that the reliance placed by the learned Government Pleader, as found in the order of this Court in W.P.No.4765 of 2004, dated 6.7.2004, whereunder similar claim was dismissed on the ground of delay of laches, does not appear to be identical to the facts of the present case. In the instant case, the petitioners rely upon the order of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nellore, dated 31.3.1999, as well as the further recommendation of the District Educational Officer, Nellore, dated 12.5.2007 and as such, the filing of the said O.A. before the Tribunal in 2009 cannot be said to be highly belated as observed by the Tribunal. Further, it is also to be remembered that the said E.L. which the petitioners are seeking is to be credited to their earned leave account in Service Registers and as long as the said credit is not given, the said claim of the employee continues to stand. It is also to be remembered that the State has already extracted work from the petitioners during the summer vacation. According to the petitioners they were induced to work by foregoing their summer vacation on an assurance that they will be credited with 25 days E.L. As mentioned above, their aforesaid claim was recommended by the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad and by the District Educational Officer. Thus, the claim of the petitioners being legitimate and just, the Welfare State ought not to oppose such claim of citizens, more so, of its own employees by raising technical pleas of limitation. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have participated in the literacy programme conducted during summer vacation and they have not been compensated for the said work in the shape of credit of 25 days E.L. The petitioners are now retired and in such a situation the State ought to be benevolent and model employer rather than contesting such claim on the ground of delay and laches. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the rejection of the O.A. on the ground of limitation is not justified. However, keeping in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioners to make a detailed representation to the 6th respondent, the District Educational Officer, Nellore, within four weeks from today. On receipt of any such representation from the petitioners, the 6th respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. __________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 7.8.2009 kpr