THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.9851 OF 2002 12.10.2011 Between: P.Veerabhadra Rao …. Petitioner AND The District Audit Officer, State Audit, Kakinada, East Godavari District And 3 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.9851 OF 2002 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner’s father Sri P.Satyanarayana was a Government employee in Department of Local Fund Audit. He died in harness. The petitioner applied for appointment to a suitable post on compassionate grounds. At the relevant time, the guidelines issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Ms.No.687, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 03.10.1977 regulated compassionate appointments to Ministerial Posts such as clerks, typists and steno-typists. By the said G.O., inter alia the Government ordered that all appointments on compassionate grounds be made to categories of posts to which the candidates are eligible and that such appointments shall be made in the categories of posts whose pay is equal or less than that of LDC. By proceedings, dated 17.11.1978, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Auditor in the office of the third respondent. His services were regularized with effect from 25.11.1978 and subsequently he was promoted as Senior Auditor on 05.05.1985. Seven years thereafter, the Audit Officer issued proceedings dated 29.05.1993 revising the date of regularization from 25.11.1978 to 06.06.1985. This was done in accordance with the guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.687, dated 03.10.1977. The petitioner did not seek any departmental remedy for redressal nor invoke the jurisdiction of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. After eight years, against the issue of proceedings dated 29.05.1993 altering the date of regularization, on 30.09.2001 the petitioner filed O.A.No.6914 of 2001 seeking to quash the said order and for a direction to restore the original seniority in the category of Senior Auditor with effect from 10.12.1985. By impugned order, dated 03.05.2002, the learned Tribunal dismissed the original application on the ground of delay and laches. Aggrieved by which, the present writ petition is filed. We have heard the counsel for petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner was seeking redressal before the departmental authorities, and therefore, he could not approach the Tribunal within a period of limitation prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (the Act, for brevity). There is no dispute that the law bars the Tribunal from admitting an application unless it is made within one year from the date on which final order has been made by the competent authority. Even where the aggrieved employee appeals or makes a representation for redressal and the same is not disposed of within a period of six months, the employee is bound to make an application under Section 19 of the Act within a period of one year from the date of expiry of period of six months. This aspect of the matter was considered by the Supreme Court in S.S.Rathore v Union of India[1] by the Constitution Bench of seven Judges of the Supreme Court, wherein it was held: It is appropriate to notice the provision regarding limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. Sub-section (1) has prescribed a period of one year for making of the application and power of condonation of delay of a total period of six months has been vested under sub-section (3). The civil court's jurisdiction has been taken away by the Act and, therefore, as far as government servants are concerned, Article 58 may not be invocable in view of the special limitation. Yet, suits outside the purview of the Administrative Tribunals Act shall continue to be governed by Article 58. It is proper that the position in such cases should be uniform. Therefore, in every such case only when the appeal or representation provided by law is disposed of, cause of action shall first accrue and where such order is not made, on the expiry of six months from the date when the appeal was filed or representation was made, the right to sue shall first accrue. Submission of just a memorial or representation to the head of the establishment shall not be taken into consideration in the matter of fixing limitation. In view of the above, even if the petitioner’s application for redressal is pending before the departmental authorities, he ought to have approached the Tribunal within a period one year. In this case, admittedly the application was filed after lapse of eight years and the learned Tribunal was rightly dismissed the same on the ground of delay and laches. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ___________________ (K.G.SHANKAR, J) 12.10.2011 Pln [1] (1989) 4 SCC 582 : AIR 1990 SC 10