Judgment :- V.S. Sirpurkar, J. Normally, the discretion used by the Tribunal in not condoning the delay is not interfered by this Court, particularly in its writ jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. But, here is a case wherein we are constrained to do so. Procedure is the handmaid of justice. Therefore, the question of limitation could have been looked into by the Tribunal with the compassionate eye. The petitioner sought for compassionate allowance under Rule 65 of Pension Rules. The same not having been given by the respondent, she filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was heftily delayed. The Tribunal rejected condonation of delay application and hence this petition. 2. We find that this is a lady, who was practically on the streets after the death of her husband. In the first place, she is an illiterate person having been married to a Railway Servant, who was serving as a skilled Grade II Fitter in the Integral Coach Factory, Chennai. It is an admitted fact that her husband has expired on 4.5.1991 and when he died, he was already removed from the service on account of his unexplained absence. So, it is not a case where the husband has committed any grave misconduct before being terminated. However, we are not on the merits of the claim. The claim that he was having indifferent health is intimately justified by the fact that the husband, in reality, expired barely one year after his removal from the service. At the time of the death of the husband, this lady was left with two children to raise and being a young widow without support or husbands money, she had to migrate to her village. 3. This is a typical combination of poverty and illiteracy. It is only out of her good sense that she came back to Chennai and took up odd jobs as building construction labourer and ultimately landed up in the house of an advocate as a servant. The concerned advocate took up her cause, understanding the difficulties which the lady had to face and extended her the legal aid by serving a notice to Railways and then by filing the application. Providing the legal aid is one of the directive principles via.Art.39-A. We are happy that the advocate took up her cause and filed the application. 4. The concerned advocate took up her cause, understanding the difficulties which the lady had to face and extended her the legal aid by serving a notice to Railways and then by filing the application. Providing the legal aid is one of the directive principles via.Art.39-A. We are happy that the advocate took up her cause and filed the application. 4. We donot think that this was an ordinary condonation of delay application, which could have been viewed with the technical eye. The obvious difficulties faced by the lady owing to her illiteracy and poverty should have been viewed with a compassionate approach. Under the circumstances, even if the delay is hefty, we would have condoned the same. We do not agree with the order of the Tribunal rejecting the condonation application and allow the petition. We request the Tribunal to proceed with the matter on merits. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.No.19658 of 2000 is closed.