IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 1349 OF 2025 Between: Jampapuram Hanumanthu, S/o Late P L Prabhudas, aged 56 years, Occ. Ex. Porter/SCR/GTL, R/o. D. No. 6/273, Porter Line, Vidaya Nagar, Road No. 2, Guntakal, Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh - 515801 ...PETITIONER AND 1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. The Indian railways. Rep by Its The General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad, Telangana. 3. The Chief Personal Officer, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad, Telangana. 4. The Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Guntakal Division, Guntakal, Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh. 5. The Senior Divisional Personal Officer, South Central Railway, Guntakal Division, Guntakal, Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENTS praying that in Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ Order or direction particularly of Certiorari or direct any other writ order the order dated 25.03.2022 passed in O.A.No.685 of 2020 on the file of the a writ in the nature to call for the records and quash Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, which rejected the petitioners claim for compassionate appointment on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, which rejected the petitioners claim for compassionate appointment as being illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the petitioners fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI JADA SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: SRI PASALA PONNA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA^ The Court made the following: ORDER > * THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI *THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN + WRIT PETITION NO: 1349/2025 % 21.01.2025 # Jampapuram Hanumanthu. Petitioner And: $1. Union of India & 4 others ....Respondents. ICounsel for the petitioners : Ms.Krishna Deepthi representing Sri Jada Sravan Kumar '^Counsel for the respondent : Sri Pasala Ponna Rao <Gist: >Head Note; ? Cases referred: 1. 2022 see OnLine sc 1785 2. (2022) 15 sec 536 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 1349/2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 21.01.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No 3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No RAVI NATH TILHARI,J CHALLA GUNARANJAN,J THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 1349/2025 ORDER: (per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J) Heard Ms. Krishna Deepthi, learned counsel representing Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned for the petitioner and Sri Pasala Ponna Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner’s father died on 06.09.2007 while in service. The petitioner applied for his appointment on compassionate ground on 29.09.2008, which was rejected by respondent N0.4 - the Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway by thereof, the petitioner kept on making representation after representations. His case was again rejected on 16.10.2020. Challenging the orders dated 18.11.2008 and 16.10.2020, the petitioner filed OA/020/685/2020, which has been dismissed by Central Administrative Tribunal, order dated 18.11.2008. Inspite an Hyderabad on 25.03.2022. The Tribunal observed that the OA lacked merits and was liable to be rejected. The Tribunal also observed that the OA was filed beyond the period of limitation and there was no reasonable cause for such delay. The cause of action had accrued on 18.11.2008. 3. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.03.2022. The facts arc not in dispute that the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment was firstly rejected on 18.11.2008. He filed repeated representations. It was lastly rejected on 16.10.2020. He approached the Tribunal in the year 2020. 4. 5. The petitioner in fact approached the Tribunal after almost 12 years. 6. It is settled in law that the repeated representations would not confer neither the Jurisdiction nor would extend the period of limitation. By submitting repeated representation a stale claim cannot be revived. Recently, in State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Rajmati Singh\ the Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated that the representations neither give rise nor revive the cause of action, if it had already arisen. Paragraphs 12 and 19 of Rajmati Singh (supra) reads as under: 7. “12. In our considered view, the respondent like any vigilant citizen, especially given that she does not belong to economically or socially backward segments of the society, was expected to assert her rights before an appropriate forum within a reasonable time. Repeated representations neither give rise nor revive the cause of action, if it had already arisen in the past. Respondent’s difficulties do not end there, given that her services were brought to an end when she denied to resume her duties in the year 1974. She was, thus, required to seek a declaration of her continuity or have a writ of mandamus issued for her reinstatement. She did not do either. The Information Commission is not a forum to adjudicate service disputes. It was not a forum which either could declare the rights of the respondent grant any service benefits. The respondent’s move before the State Information Commission was thus an exercise in futility. It leaves no room for doubt that the respondent slept over her rights and allowed the grass to grow under her feet for a long duration of over 33 years.” xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx “19. Close to the facts of this case, in “C.Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and others” (2008) 10 SCC 115, this Court, having found that was or ’ 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1785 the employee suddenly brought up e challenge to the order of termination of his services after 20 years and claimed all consequential benefits, held that the relief sought for was inadmissible. The legal position in this regard was laid out in the following terms: “10. Every representation of the Government for relief, may not be applied on merits. Representations relating to matters which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. In regard to representations unrelated to the Department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter did not concern the Department or to inform the appropriate Department. Representations with incomplete particulars may be replied by seeking relevant particulars. The replies to such representations, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim. 11. When a decision is issued by a court/tribunal to consider or deal with the representation, usually the directee (person directed) examines the matter on merits, being under the impression that failure to do so may amount to disobedience. When an order is passed considering and rejecting the claim or representation, in compliance with direction of the court or tribunal, such an order does not revive the stale claim, nor amount to some kind of “acknowledgement of a jural relationship” to give rise to a fresh cause of action. When a government abandons service to take alternative employment or to attend to personal affairs, and does not bother to send any letter seeking leave or letter of resignation or letter of voluntary retirement, and the records do not show that he is treated as being in service, he cannot after two decades, represent that he should be taken back to duty. Nor can such employee be treated as having continued in service, thereby deeming the entire period as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. That will be a travesty of justice. 13. Where an employee unauthorisedly absents himself and suddenly appears after 20 years and demands that he should be taken back and approaches the court, the department naturally will not or may not have any record relating to the employee at that distance of time. In such cases, when the employer fails to produce the records of the enquiry and the order of dismissal/removal, court cannot draw an adverse inference against the employer for not producing records, nor direct reinstatement with back wages for 20 years, ignoring the cessation of service or the lucrative alternative employment of the employee. Misplaced sympathy in such matters will encourage discipline, lead to unjust enrichment of the employee at fault and result in drain of public exchequer. Many a time there is also no application of mind as to the extent of financial burden, as a result of a routine order for back wages.” 12. 8. In Surjeet Singh Sahni V3. State of Uttar Pradesh and others^ also the Hon’ble Apex Court observed and held as under in paras 7and 8: “7. Therefore, when such orders are passed by the High Courts either relegating the petitioner to make a representation and/or directing the appropriate authority to decide the representation , the High Courts have to consider whether the writ petition is filed belatedly and/or the same is barred by latches and/or not, so that in future the person who has approached belatedly may not contend that the fresh cause of action has arisen on rejection of the representation. Even in a case where earlier representation is rejected, the High Court shall decide the matter on merits. 8. As observed by this Court in catena of decisions, representation does not extend the period of limitation and the aggrieved person has to approach the Court 4 expeditiously and within reasonable time. If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court should dismiss it at the threshold and ought not to dispose of the writ petition by relegating the writ petitioner to file a representation and/or directing the authority to decide the representation, once it is found that the original writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches. Such order shall not give an opportunity to the petitioner to thereafter contend that rejection of the representation subsequently has given a fresh cause of action.” The present writ petition has also been filed after almost three mere 9. years from the date of the order of the Tribunal. Though the petitioner has tried to explain the laches in para-8 of the writ petition, but after going through the same, we are not satisfied, for the reason that laches can also not be explained by continuously making the representations, even after rejection of the claim on merits, which in the present case was in the year 2008 and the dismissal of the OA was in 2020. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ^(2022) 15 see 536 r As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, If any pending, shall also stand closed. Sd/- K. KASI RAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// sectTon officer One fair copy to the Hon’ble SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI (For His Lordships Kind Perusal) One fair copy to the Hon’ble SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN (For His Lordships Kind Perusal) To 1. One CC to Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Pasala Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of India High Court of A.P.[OPUC] 9 LR Copies The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. The Secretary, A.P. Advocates’ Association Library, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi. Three CD Copies. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:21/01/2025 ^ 12 FEB 2025 ORDER . Current Section WP.No.1349 of 2025 DISMISSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS