Judgment 1. The present application has been filed for quashing the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the CAT) dated 17.1.2001, as contained in Annexure 13, by which the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he being the son of late H. P. Sinha, who died in harness as an employee of the Indian Railways as Ex. Catering Supervisor on 16.11.1984, could have been appointed on compassionate ground. 3. It has further been contended that initially also his mother had made an application requesting for the appointment of her second son, as her first son was already employed. 4. From the order of the CAT it would transpire that on 9.7.98, the Chief Personnel Officer communicated the decision of the General Manager to the petitioner stating therein that his father had died on 16.11.84 and as more than 18 years and 8 months have elapsed and as the application for compassionate appointment was required to be submitted within five years from the death of the Railway employee and as the application of the petitioner had been submitted more than seven years thereafter, the same could not be considered. The aforesaid Setter further goes to show that the General Manager had been delegated with the special power towards relaxation of five years time with regard to the appointment of the first son/first daughter/first child fo the ex railway employee, provided the application was submitted within two years of his/her majority, i.e., attaining 18 years of age. 5. Admittedly, in the present case both the sons of the deceased Railway employee were major on the date of the death of their father. On the date of consideration of the petitioners belated application the mother had already died and two daughters had been married. 6. It transpires from the order of the CAT that the elder brother of the petitioner is a practising Ayurvedic Doctor and the petitioner is also an Ayurvedic Doctor. As such, the petitioner under no circumstances could have been granted exemption of relaxation for the period fixed for filing an application for compassionate appointment after the drath of the deceased employee. 7. As such, the petitioner under no circumstances could have been granted exemption of relaxation for the period fixed for filing an application for compassionate appointment after the drath of the deceased employee. 7. The petitioner has tried to rely on Annexure-8 to show that a letter had already been sent to the Chief Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway by the mother of the petitioner requesting for the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground and as the aforesaid application was within time, the same should have been considered favourably. 8. From bare perusal of Annexure-1, it transpires that the aforesaid letter is a reminder regarding claim for payment of Gratuity, Provident Fund, Group Insurance, Family Pension and other benefits to which she was entitled due to the death of her husband late H. P. Sinha. In the aforesaid letter it has been stated that if her second son, who is unemployed may be appointed on the post upon which his father was working then she would be obliged. As far as the case of the Department is concerned, it has clearly been stated that the first application received was in the year 1991. 9. In the facts of this case as the petitioner was already major on the date his father died and as an application had not been made within the prescribed period of five years and as compassionate appointment is not a mode of appointment and as the sister of the petitioner has already been married, as such, this court is not inclined to interfere in the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17.1.2001 by which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. 10. The present writ application is dismissed being devoid of any merit.