THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT APPEAL No.247 of 2002 Date: 25.08.2009 Between: J. Mallesh. ..Appellant and Osmania University and another. ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT APPEAL No.247 of 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per BPR, J) The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant, who files this appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent, 1865, against dismissal of W.P.No.26701 of 2001, by order dated 31.12.2001, where he sought for a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering his case for compassionate appointment and not releasing the benefits to which he is entitled to in view of death of his adoptive mother – late Smt. J. Rajamma. The case of the appellant, in brief, is to the effect that Rajamma is his grandmother; that she was an employee with the second respondent college and that she adopted him on 15.02.1987 and later she died on 21.09.1998. In view of her death, he sought for compassionate appointment. In the meanwhile he was paid all the monetary benefits arising out of death of Rajamma including funeral expenses etc. His grievance is that though he made representations along with no objection affidavits of his two sisters, his request was not considered by the respondents. Therefore, he filed the writ petition. The learned single Judge, considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, did not find favour with the appellant’s request and dismissed the writ petition having regard to the fact that the application seeking compassionate appointment was made beyond the time prescribed. Seeking interference of the same, this writ appeal is filed. Having considered the detailed submissions made by the counsel on either side and having perused the material available on record, it transpires that the appellant claims to be the adopted son of his grandmother having adoption taken place on 15.02.1987; that she was an employee of the second respondent college and that she died on 21.09.1998, but there are no details as to how his adoption was necessitated and what exactly the relationship. Further, though there is ample evidence on record to show that in the meanwhile funeral expenses and other amounts were paid to the appellant in February and March, 1999, he filed representation only in 2001 seeking compassionate appointment referring to his earlier request made on 14.12.1998 along affidavits of his sisters. The case of the appellant is that he made representation, which is intact. However, on a perusal of the material papers, it is seen that there is nothing on record to show that there was any application made on 14.12.1998 along with those affidavits etc. Therefore, we are of the view that having regard to the appellant failing to establish that he made any application on 14.12.1998 as claimed by him, he is not entitled to seek compassionate appointment. The question as to whether he is entitled to such or other benefits claiming to be the adopted son does not require any attention. Mere pleading of filing such application on 14.12.1998 is not sufficient to show that there exists such application. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there are no merits in the writ appeal. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ (B. PRAKASH RAO, J) 25th August, 2009 ____________________ (G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J) GHN