THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WAMP (SR)103937 of 2010 In Writ Appeal No.393 of 2010 DT.21-03-2012 Between: B.D.Bhasker s/o Rangaiah … Appellant And The Divisional Security Commissiioner, Railway Protection Force, Vijayawada, Krishna District & another. … Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: M.Surender Rao Counsel for respondent: Sri The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WAMP (SR)103937 of 2010 In Writ Appeal No.393 of 2010 O R D E R: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) This application is filed by the wife of the appellant to condone the delay of 1781 days in representing W.A (SR) No.107380 of 2005, who has been permitted to come on record as legal heir of the appellant by an order dated 21-03-2012 (today) made in WAMP.No.2432 of 2010. The petitioner submits that her husband Mr.B.D.Bhasker while working as Railway Protection Force Constable was removed from service by order dated 25-06-1990, against which an appeal filed was rejected on 31-12-1990. Against the rejection of appeal, he filed W.P.No.17640 of 1999 and the learned Single Judge by order dated 4-8-2005 set aside the removal order and held that her husband is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but without any back-wages. It is stated that this Writ Appeal was filed against denial of back-wages alone on 10-08-2005. The writ appeal (SR) was returned on 19-9-2005 with certain objections to be submitted within 15 days. After filing the appeal, he was reinstated into service on 29-9-2005. The petitioner herself states in the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the extraordinary delay that her husband requested the counsel not to represent the appeal as he was pursuing the matter in the department. Therefore, her counsel did not represent the appeal by complying with the objections. It is not in dispute that the Writ Appeal is not resubmitted by complying with the objections during the lifetime of her husband from 19-9-2005 till his death on 18-10-2009 for a period of more than 4 years. Even according to the petitioner herself her husband requested the counsel not to represent the appeal and even after his reinstatement in 2005 her husband did not give instructions to his counsel to represent the writ appeal. Insofar as payment of back-wages is concerned, we are of the opinion that it is open for the legal heir to have any grievance against the said instructions of the appellant to his counsel. When the appellant himself did not chose to prosecute the writ appeal, it is not open for her to prosecute the same. Therefore, though we have permitted her to come on record as legal heir of the appellant, we are not inclined to condone the extraordinary delay of 1781 days i.e., about 4 years 9 months. Accordingly, WAMP is dismissed. Consequently, the Writ Appeal (SR) No.107380 of 2005 also stands dismissed. No costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH,J _______________ K.G.SHANKAR,J Dt:21-03-2012 grk THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR (The Judgment of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) WAMP (SR)103937 of 2010 In Writ Appeal No.393 of 2010 DT.21-03-2012