THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI WRIT PETITION No.12551 of 2011 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

Mr. E.Ganesh, learned counsel representing Mr. Kallakuri Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Ms. Archana Chelimella, learned counsel representing Mr. A.Samir Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

2. In this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 12.05.2010 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commission, Hyderabad in H.R.C.No.230 of 2007, by which the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commission has directed the petitioner to provide medical facilities to retired employees on par with the serving employees.

3. The Supreme Court in G.Manikyamma v.

Roudri Cooperative Housing Society Limited¹ has taken note of Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, which deals with functions of the Commission. The Supreme Court in paragraph 44 of the said decision held as under:

“44. The functions and powers of the Commission are enumerated under Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, which reads as follows: “12. Functions of the Commission.—The Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely—

(a) inquire, suo motu or on a petition presented to it by a victim or any person on his behalf, into complaint of—

(i) violation of human rights or abetment thereof; or (ii) negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant;

(2014) 15 SCC 197 (b) intervene in any proceeding involving any allegation of violation of human rights pending before a court with the approval of such court;

(c) visit, under intimation to the State Government, any jail or any other institution under the control of the State Government, where persons are detained or lodged for purposes of treatment, reformation or protection to study the living conditions of the inmates and make recommendations thereon;

(d) review the safeguards provided by or under the Constitution or any law for the time being in force for the protection of human rights and recommend measures for their effective implementation;

(e) review the factors, including acts of terrorism, that inhibit the enjoyment of human rights and recommend appropriate remedial measures;

(f) study treaties and other international instruments on human rights and make recommendations for their effective implementation;

(g) undertake and promote research in the field of human rights;

(h) spread human rights literacy among various sections of society and promote awareness of the safeguards available for the protection of these rights, through publications, the media, seminars and other available means;

(i) encourage the efforts of non- governmental organisations and institutions working in the field of human rights;

(j) such other functions as it may consider necessary for the promotion of human rights.”

It can be seen from the language, there is nothing in Section 12 which authorises the Human Rights Commission to adjudicate upon the disputes of title and possession of property.”

4. Thus, in view of aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court, it is evident that Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, does not authorise the Commission to adjudicate upon the dispute with regard to service benefits admissible to a retired employee.

5. The impugned order dated 12.05.2010 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commission, Hyderabad in H.R.C.No.230 of 2007 is therefore per se without jurisdiction and the same is hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him/her in law.

6. With the aforesaid liberty, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________________

ALOK