Judgment :- (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 2.4.2009 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No. 312 of 2007, wherein and whereby the Tribunal disposed of the matter by setting aside the order dated 27.10.2006 passed by the first respondent. 2. O.A.No. 312 of 2007 was filed under Section 19 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal’s Act 1985, seeking appointment of the son of the deceased Group D Mazdoor working in Garrison Engineer, Air Force Academy, Hyderabad, who expired on account of suicide due to mental illness in the Mental Hospital, Erragadda, leaving the widow, one son viz., applicant herein aged about 17 years and one daughter aged about 11 years at the time of his death. It is stated that the applicant submitted an application on 31.12.2001 seeking appointment of her son on compassionate grounds and the said application was processed by the respondents 2,3, and 5 and Board of Officers considered the case of the applicant for appointment of her son on compassionate grounds and finally approved for appointment against 5% direct recruitment quota for the year 2003 and the same was forwarded to the 1st respondent, the Director General (Pers) by the Chief Engineer, Southern Command, Pune (R-2). But the first respondent by his letter dated 27.10.2006 refused to take up the matter with the Ministry of Defence for obtaining necessary sanction on the ground that it is contrary to the policy guidelines in view of the abnormal delay. 3. The Tribunal after careful examination of the facts held as under: “Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the respondents 1,2,3 and 5 are directed to forward the entire file relating to the compassionate appointment for the son of the applicant to the 4th respondent for consideration to provide appointment by condoning the delay within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and 4th respondent is directed to consider the application of the applicant keeping in mind the relevant provisions of the scheme for Compassionate Appointment referred to supra in this order and the recommendations of Board of Officers, within two months after receiving the file from the other respondents” 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the deceased died on 18.1.1996 and the family members of the deceased were not vigilant and they ought to have made an application so as to seek immediate relief and instead of doing so they approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal ought not to have undertaken the exercise of condoning the delay. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently contended that the respondent is not aware of the scheme and it is the duty of the authority to inform the grief family regarding the said scheme so as to take necessary steps but that was not done therefore, the respondent did not send any application within the time stipulated. 6. We have heard the rival contentions advanced by both the counsel and perused the material made available on record. 7. Now the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal has committed any jurisdictional error or exceeded its limit. 8. As seen from the record, there is a scheme framed by the Government with regard to compassionate appointment. It is no doubt true that the deceased died leaving behind widow and her children and at the time of death, the son of the deceased was aged about 17 years. It is also no doubt true that because of her illiteracy, she has not taken any steps seeking compassionate appointment of her son by making an application to the authorities. But it is the bounden duty of the authorities to act fairly and honestly so as to provide benefits to the deceased children. It is also noticed that as per Para 12 (b) of the Scheme the Welfare Officer in each Ministry/Department/Office should meet the members of the family of the Government Servant in question immediately after the death to advise and assist them in getting appointment on compassionate grounds and the applicant should be called in person at the very first stage and advised in person about the requirements and formalities to be completed by them. But that has not happened in the present case. The Scheme is provided to safe guard the interest of the bereaved family. In this case the respondent was deprived of benefit because of delay in submitting the representation. But that has not happened in the present case. The Scheme is provided to safe guard the interest of the bereaved family. In this case the respondent was deprived of benefit because of delay in submitting the representation. We have also noticed that the Tribunal straight away directed the respondents 1,2,3 and 5 to forward the entire file relating to the compassionate appointment of the son of the applicant to the 4th respondent for consideration to provide appointment by condoning the delay within two months. The Tribunal exceeded its limit by so directing the respondents. The Tribunal ought not to have under taken the exercise of condoning the delay and should have remitted back the matter so as to enable the department to process the application of the applicant-respondent and to forward the same for considering the request relating to compassionate appointment of her son. 9. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Tribunal is modified directing the petitioners to forward the papers of the respondent-applicant to the Ministry of Defence so as to enable it to examine and consider the case of the respondent-applicant for appointment of her son on compassionate grounds, including the aspect of delay, in the light of the scheme framed by the Government, as the petitioners did not act as per para 12(b) of the Scheme framed by the Government, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.