THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 20225 of 2010 Dated: 17-8-2010 Between: The Vizianagaram Zilla Praja Parishad, rep. by its Chief Executive Officer …Petitioner and K. Samalamma and others …Respondents ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) This is a misconceived litigative campaign by the Vizianagaram Zilla Praja Parishad, directed against the order dated 3-4-2010 of the learned A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad ( for short ‘the Act’) allowing partly O.A.No. 10119 of 2009 and directing the petitioner herein (the respondent in the O.A.) to release the terminal benefits to the original applicant (the 1st respondent herein), the widow of one Appanna, an Attender in the Mandal Parishad, within the time stipulated by the Tribunal. Sri Appanna, the husband of the 1st respondent was appointed on 1-2-1984 as an Attender in the Mandal Praja Parishad Elementary School, Pentasreeramapuram, Vizianagaram District. The Mandal Development Officer, Mandal Praja Parishad, Gantyada by an order dated 13-10-1983 regularised the services of Sri Appanna as an Attender with effect from 1-2-1984. Appanna died in harness on 11-3- 2007. Thereafter the widow (1st respondent) applied for compassionate appointment. No order having been passed and aggrieved by the inaction of the Z.P.P in releasing the terminal benefits due to the widow and family on the demise of the employee, she filed the O.A. seeking appropriate relief. The Chief Executive Officer of the Z.P.P. admitted in its counter in the O.A., that Sri Appanna was a Class IV employee; he died while in service on 11-3-2007; his services were regularised vide G.O.Rt.No. 708, Education (H1) department, dated 23-5-1983; that the widow’s application for compassionate appointment was not received within one year from the date of death of the serving employee; and therefore she was not entitled for compassionate appointment. It was also contended in the counter that the proposal for sanction of pension was received in the office in February, 2008 and was recommended to the District Audit Office, Vizianagaram for scrutiny. The Audit Office returned the application for want of certain documents and the Mandal Educational Officer, Gantyada resubmitted the proposals during September, 2009 rectifying the defects for sanction. But the pension was not yet sanctioned. In partly allowing the O.A., the learned Tribunal had recorded that the applicant was not entitled to the relief of compassionate appointment, as she had submitted an application belatedly. The Tribunal however ruled that she was entitled to a direction for release of the terminal benefits such as, gratuity and pension and other benefits, since her husband died while in service after putting in 23 years and 2 months of regular service. Sri Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the writ petitioner would creatively contend that not only was Sri Appanna disentitled for regularisation of his service (since he had joined the service in February, 1984, while the orders in G.O.Rt.No. 708 dated 23-5-1983 enables regularisation of persons who are continued on full time basis for a period of five years as on 1-4-1981); but also that the competent authority for passing an order of regularisation is the Chief Executive Officer of the Mandal Praja Parishad and not the Mandal Development Officer. None of these grounds had been pleaded in the counter-affidavit in O.A.No. 10119 of 2009. It is axiomatic that in the context of law declared in L.Chandrakumar v. Union of India[1] a party aggrieved by a decision or an action taken by an authority falling within the jurisdiction of a Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 must first approach the Tribunal for relief and cannot directly seek relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Consistent with the syllogism of this ratio, it must follow that all pleadings of fact must be addressed (either in support of the challenge or in defence thereof) before the Tribunal and not before this Court in an application for judicial review against an order of the Tribunal. This Court is consecrated in this writ petition the function of oversight of the order of the Tribunal impugned herein. Since the contention now asserted, namely, the irregularity in the order of regularisation of Sri Appanna, qua the provisions of G.O.Rt.No. 708 or the incompetence of the Mandal Development Officer to have accorded regularisation was not pleaded before the Tribunal, the Tribunal proceeded on the premise that the order of regularisation was validly issued, an aspect never contested in the counter. In the aforestated factual matrix, the order of the Tribunal is impeccable and warrants no interference in judicial review. In any event since Sri Appanna died on 11-3-2007, there is no recourse available to the petitioner to invalidate the order of regularisation dated 13-11-1983. It could only be done after notice and opportunity to Sri Appanna, which is not now within the capacity of the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons and on the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. _________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _________________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J 17th August, 2010. GRR [1] AIR 1997 SC 1125