*THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU +WRIT PETITION No.512 of 2008 %Dated 18-01-2008 # D. Swapnalatha, D/o. late D. Ashamma, Aged about 21 years, Occ: Unemployee, R/o. Plot No.165, Opp: PJP Camp, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District. … Petitioner Vs. $ The Chief Engineer, (Mechanical), I & CAD (PW) Department, M.J. Road, Hyderabad and 4 others. … Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri M. Ratna Reddy ^Counsel for Respondents : G.P. for Services-II <GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.512 of 2008 Dated : 18.01.2008 Between : D. Swapnalatha … Petitioner/s And The Chief Engineer, (Mechanical), I & CAD (PW) Department, M.J. Road, Hyderabad and 4 others. …Respondent/s THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.512 of 2008 ORAL ORDER : (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II, appearing for the respondents. 2. This Writ of Certiorari is filed seeking to quash the order, dated 23.08.2007, in M.A.No.1185 of 2007 in O.A.No.1918 of 2005, passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’), dismissing the M.A., filed by the petitioner seeking to implead her as the legal representative of her mother, who filed O.A.No.1918 of 2005. 3. The facts, in brief, are as under:- The mother of the petitioner filed Original Application O.A.No.1918 of 2005 before the Tribunal, challenging the order, dated 04.04.2005, passed by respondent No.4 terminating her from the services on the ground that her appointment on compassionate grounds was illegal. After hearing the matter, on 30.01.2005, the Tribunal had reserved the same and pronounced the order on 17.04.2006, eventually allowing the O.A. The said order of the Tribunal has become final, inasmuch as, the same was not subjected to challenge before this Court. 4. It appears, subsequent to the date of reserving the matter for order and the actual pronouncement of the order i.e., between 30.11.2005 and 17.04.2006, the mother of the petitioner died. The said fact was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal by either side and consequently the order, dated 17.04.2006, passed by the Tribunal, in O.A.No.1918 of 2005, has become operable as against the respondents. 5. Be that as it may, the petitioner filed the present miscellaneous application M.A.No.1185 of 2007 in O.A.No.1918 of 2005, seeking to implead her as the legal representative of her mother, who was the applicant in the said O.A. 6. The actual prayer sought for by the petitioner in the said M.A.No.1185 of 2007 is as under: “For the reasons stated above, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to order permitting the legal representatives of late Smt. D. Ashamma to be brought on record in O.A.No.1918/2005 and order issuance of a fresh copy of order dated 17-04-2006 passed in O.A.No.1918/2005 by incorporating the name of Ms. D. Swapnalatha as legal representatives of late Smt. D. Ashamma in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 7. The Tribunal, after considering the material available on record, dismissed the said M.A., with the following observations: “It is seen that OA.No.1918 of 2005, instituted by the applicant’s mother late Smt. D. Ashamma was already disposed of by this Tribunal on 17.4.2006. The question of permitting the applicant as legal representative of Smt. D.Ashamma to be brought on record in the OA cannot be conceded to by this Tribunal as the OA is not pending and has been disposed of. If at all the applicant intends to reap the consequential benefits pending, out of the orders passed by this Tribunal in OA.No.1918 of 2005, it is open for her to file an appropriate application in accordance with the rules. MA is dismissed accordingly.” 8. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said M.A., the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that, in the light of Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 (for brevity ‘the Rules’), the Tribunal was in error in dismissing the M.A., filed by the petitioner, seeking to implead her in O.A.No.1918 of 2005, filed by her mother. 10. For better appreciation and ready reference, it would be apposite to extract Rule 20 of the Rules, which is as under:- “Rule 20. Substitution of legal representatives:-- (1) In the case of death of a party during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the legal representatives of the deceased party may apply within thirty days of the date of such death for being brought on record as necessary parties. (2)Where no application is received from the legal representatives within the period specified in sub-rule (1), the proceedings against the deceased party shall abate: Provided that on good and sufficient reasons the Tribunal, on an application, may set aside the order of abatement and substitute the legal representatives.” 11. From a perusal of the above provision, it is clear that the legal representative/s of the deceased party to the O.A., may apply within thirty days from the date of such death for being brought on record as necessary parties. 12. This is obvious, because certain benefits that accrued to the dead person owing to the allowing of the O.A., may flow to the legal representative/s. Of course, this may not happen in all cases. In other words, this contingency depends upon the nature of the dispute involved, particularly in cases where the monetary benefits that accrued to the deceased by virtue of allowing the O.A., and the same shall not be taken away from being passed on to the legal representative/s. 13. Rule 20 of the Rules further postulates that such legal representative/s may file an application seeking impleadment before the Tribunal within thirty days from the date of the death of the party to the O.A., and further that the death must have taken place during the pendency of the proceedings. (emphasis supplied by us) 14. In the instant case, admittedly, the death of the mother of the petitioner had taken place between 30.11.2005 and 17.04.2006; the period during which the matter was pending before the Tribunal for rendering the order. The actual pronouncement of the order was on 17.04.2006. Therefore, by necessary implication, the O.A., is deemed to be pending till the date of pronouncement of the order i.e., on 17.04.2006. 15. No doubt, for one reason or the other, the factum of the death of the applicant in the said O.A., was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal till the date of pronouncement of the order on 17.04.2006 and the Tribunal had allowed the O.A., setting aside the order of termination, dated 04.04.2005. As a consequence thereof, the monetary benefits like salary and other benefits owing to the death of the applicant in the said O.A., would devolve upon her successors/legal representative/s. But, the respondents cannot be the eventual beneficiaries, notwithstanding the allowing of the O.A. 16. Further, sub-rule (2) of Rule 20 of the Rules envisages that if no application is received from the legal representative/s within the prescribed period of one month, as provided under sub- rule (1), the proceedings pending against the deceased party shall abate automatically. 17. However, proviso to the said sub-rule postulates that upon showing valid and satisfactory reasons by way of an application, the Tribunal may set aside the order of abatement and substitute the legal representative/s in the place of deceased applicant. 18. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the proviso to Rule 20 of the Rules is more relevant, in the instant case, which has not been given proper attention by the Tribunal. 19. It is to be further noted that the petitioner had filed the miscellaneous application seeking to implead her as the legal representative of her mother, only to have the benefits that accrued to her mother by virtue of allowing of the O.A. 20. From a perusal of the impugned order, passed by the Tribunal, as extracted above, it is clear that the Tribunal had dismissed the M.A., on two grounds – (i) the petitioner cannot be brought on record as the legal representative of her mother late Smt. D.Ashamma, since the O.A., was not pending as on the date of filing of the M.A., and (ii) if the petitioner intends to have the benefits out of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1918 of 2005, filed by her mother, it was always open for her to file an appropriate application in accordance with the rules. 21. The above said two grounds appear to be in conflict with each other, at one glance. The first part i.e., dismissal of the M.A., on the ground that the O.A., was not pending as on the date of filing of the said M.A., and, therefore, the M.A., was liable to be dismissed, is concerned, it is to be seen that this aspect has been made clear by virtue of Rule 20 of the Rules, as observed above. 22. However, at the cost of repetition, we may reiterate that mere pendency of the O.A., is not relevant. The more relevant factor is the death of the applicant during the pendency of the O.A. That is what had happened in the instant case. 23. The mother of the petitioner, who was the applicant in the O.A., died during the pendency of the O.A. But, as on the date of filing of the M.A., by the petitioner, the O.A., was not pending. Therefore, in the light of the proviso to Rule 20 of the Rules, though the O.A., was not pending as on the date of filing of the M.A., since the death of the deceased had taken place during the pendency of the O.A., the petitioner, being the legal representative of the deceased, can always make an application to come on record as the legal representative of the deceased, as provided under sub-rule (1) of Rule 20 of the Rules, read with the proviso to it. 24. In other words, though the O.A., was disposed of, in view of the fact that the death of the deceased had taken place during the pendency of the O.A., the legal representative/s can always file an application before the Tribunal seeking impleadment in order to get the benefits, if any, out of the order passed by the Tribunal in the main O.A., showing good and sufficient reasons to the satisfaction of the Tribunal for not filing such an application within the prescribed period of thirty days, and upon such application being filed, if the Tribunal is satisfied with the grounds of delay, necessarily it has to pass appropriate order for impleadment. 25. However, in the impugned order, the Tribunal had taken care of the present contingency by observing that if the petitioner intends to reap the consequential benefits out of the order passed by it in O.A.No.1918 of 2005, it is always open for her to file an appropriate application in accordance with the rules. 26. Now, the question that arises for consideration, in this writ petition, is, what is the relevant rule in the present contingency. 27. The relevant rule, in the present contingency, is Rule 37 of the Andhra Pradesh administrative Tribunal Practice Rules, 1995, which reads as under: “Rule 37. Enforcement of Tribunal Orders:-- (1) The applicant in whose favour the order is made may apply to the Tribunal for execution in the manner prescribed in Section 27 of the Act. The Tribunal may after notice to the authority concerned pass appropriate orders. (2) An order of costs, compensation etc., passed by the Tribunal may be executed as a money decree passed by Civil Court.” 28. This is an inherent provision for the applicant to have the order of the Tribunal executed. Here, the expression ‘applicant’ includes the legal representative/s, if the legal representative/s is brought on record as contemplated under Rule 20 of the Rules. But, for any reason, if the application for impleadment, subsequent to the disposal of the O.A., made by the legal representative/s is dismissed, it does not totally take away the right of the legal representative/s to have the benefits accrued to the deceased- original applicant. 29. As already pointed out, the right of the legal representative/s cannot be taken away merely because of not filing the application in time, as provided under sub-rule (1) of Rule 20 of the Rules. 30. Even, assuming a situation where no such application is filed, or, if the same is dismissed, what would be the consequence is another important question. 31. The above question had been answered by the Tribunal by observing that the petitioner is at liberty to file an appropriate application in accordance with the rules, obviously under Rule 37 of the Andhra Pradesh administrative Tribunal Practice Rules, 1995. 32. Here, again the Tribunal may take an objection on the ground that the legal representative was not permitted to be brought on record by the Tribunal, therefore, there cannot be any entitlement for execution of the order, dated 17.04.2006, passed by it, in O.A.No.1918 of 2005. 33. From a reading of the second part of the operative portion of the impugned order, passed by the Tribunal, we are of the view that the Tribunal was conscious in making an observation that the petitioner can make an application independently, notwithstanding her non-impleadment in the O.A., and accordingly gave liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application in accordance with the rules – obviously under Rule 37 of the Andhra Pradesh administrative Tribunal Practice Rules, 1995. 34. It cannot be forgotten that the opposite party in this litigation is a Department of the Government and in such cases, undoubtedly, the Government cannot be the eventual beneficiary. Benevolence, both by the Government as well as the Tribunal, while dealing with the matters of the present nature, shall be shown in a more practical manner, rather than simply relying on the rules. After all, the law is meant to subserve the justice. 35. For the foregoing, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the Tribunal with a direction to consider the miscellaneous application M.A.No.1185 of 2007, filed by the petitioner, on merits and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, keeping in view the equities also. 36. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed, at the stage of admission, setting aside the impugned order, dated 23.08.2007, passed by the Tribunal, in M.A.No.1185 of 2007 in O.A.No.1918 of 2005. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 18TH JANUARY 2008 NOTE: L.R. Copy be marked. (B/O) Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.512 of 2008 18TH JANUARY 2008 (MSR)