Rakesh Tiwari and Ashok Pal Singh, JJ. — Father of the petitioner Sri Ram Singer was an employee of the Railways. He was working as Machinist in Wood saw mill shop of the Railway Mechanical Workshop, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur. On 13.7.1983 the father of the petitioner was declared medically unfit for all categories of railway service as he was suffering from impaired vision. 2. The petitioner passed his High School Examination in the year 1989 and attained age of majority i.e. 18 years. An application dated 12.7.1991 was then moved by Sri Ram Singar before the General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur for compassionate appointment of his son the petitioner in the service of the Railway according to his qualification. This application is Claimed to have been moved by him immediately after the petitioner became eligible for service on attaining the age of majority. The petitioner also Claims to have completed all the formalities for his appointment on compassionate ground and complete form in this regard was submitted by him to respondent No. 2. The General Manager, N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur. Along with the form and application for compassionate appointment a declaration was also made by father of the petitioner supported by an affidavit regarding the family members dependent upon him declaring that petitioner was his only son. A photostat copy of the format in which petitioner was his only son. A photostat copy of the format in which aforesaid declaration has been given is appended as Annexure RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit. 3. After consideration, the application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner was rejected by the Senior Personal Officer/R.P. for General Manager (Personal) North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, vide order dated 27.2.2004. Aggrieved, the petitioner moved before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as 'CAT') whereas his Claim application was registered as O.A. No. 1571 of 2004, Visheshwar Nath v. Union of India and others. This Claim application was rejected by the CAT vide judgment and order dated 27.2.2004 appended as annexure No. 1, impugned in the present writ petition for quashing. I as annexure No. 1, impugned in the present writ petition for quashing. I read thus: @ Hindi @ 4. This Claim application was rejected by the CAT vide judgment and order dated 27.2.2004 appended as annexure No. 1, impugned in the present writ petition for quashing. I as annexure No. 1, impugned in the present writ petition for quashing. I read thus: @ Hindi @ 4. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the orders dated 22.1.2007 appended as annexure No. 2 to the writ petition, passed by CAT, respondent No. 1 in O.A. No. 1571 of 2004, Visheshwar Nath v. Union of India and others. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent Nos. 2 the General Manager North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur to appoint the petitioner on a suitable post in the Railway Department according to his eligibility and qualification with effect from the date he had moved the application for appointment compassionate ground before the respondents through his father. He has also prayed for payment of arrears of salary to him with consequential period within the stipulated time which may be fixed by this Court or pass any suitable order which this Court may deem be fixed by this Court or pass any suitable order which this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after attaining the age of majority i.e. 18 years and having passed the High School Examination in the year 1989 he moved the department for compassionate on a consummating with his qualifications. 6. According to the petitioner he is entitled to compassionate appointment in view of the Railway Board letters/guidelines RB No. E (NE) II/95/RE-1/94, dated 10.11.2000 which provides for extending the facility of compassionate appointment to one of the wards of medically decategorised employee. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the facts and circumstances of the case it was neither proper nor justified the rejecting the respondent to reject the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. It is also urged that due to medical reasons Sri Ram Singar could not go through the contents of the declaration and had simply put his thumb the contents of the declaration and had simply put his thumb impression on the already prepared declaration from the authorities which could be a bar to the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds in the department. 7. It is lastly argued that request for compassionate appointment can be entertained by the department even after delay or expiry of 5 to 20 years in view of Board's order No. E- (NG)II/99/RE-1/Gen. 23, dated 30.11.1999 and that his request was liable to be accepted as it had been made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment merely after about 9 years of medical decategorisation of his father. He submits that there was no delay in moving the application as such it has wrongly been held by the CAT that the application is barred by time as the petitioner had moved the application for compassionate appointment to the department after more than 12 years from the date his father had been decategorised. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that Sri Ram Singar father of the petitioner had four sons and a daughter at the time of his medical decategorisation by the Railway department but he concealed the said fact in the affidavit and declaration submitted by Sri Ram Singar on which Ram Singar had affixed his thumb impression. 9. It is then submitted by Sri K.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents that the factum that the applicant, Visheshwar Nath had three elder brothers was concealed from the authorities and even if he had no elder brothers, he was a minor at the time his father Sri Ram Singar was •medically decategorised. Therefore, his wife Smt. Maryadi Devi, could have applied for compassionate appointment, if the family was in destitute or in cold penury. 10. After hearing counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record we find that the Tribunal after perusal of record and the documents filed by the parties came to a conclusion that the application filed by the petitioner for compassionate appointment moved through his father on 12.7.1991 was in fact moved in the year 1995 and that the application suffered from in fact moved in the year 1995 and that the application suffered from laches as it was barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. On merits the Court concluded. As a general rule compassionate appointment is made only if the family/dependent of the employee is in destitute or is living in cold penury or is requiring immediate financial assistance and therefore, the petitioner is in utter need of compassionate appointment. On merits the Court concluded. As a general rule compassionate appointment is made only if the family/dependent of the employee is in destitute or is living in cold penury or is requiring immediate financial assistance and therefore, the petitioner is in utter need of compassionate appointment. An application ought to have been moved by any of the members of the family who were eligible immediately after Sri Ram Singar had been medically decategorised. 11. Relevant extract of the Tribunal as given in Paragraph 5 rads thus: "I have considered the respective submission in the light of material on record. It stands well settled, after catena of decision of Apex Court compassionate appointment is by way of exception to the general Rule of appointment. It is also settled that more the period lapses to the date of death of employee or to the date of medical decategorisation etc. lesser are the chances for such appointment. In case in hand, the request for compassionate appointment came after about 12 years of the date of medical decategorisation. If the applicant or his father were really requiring any assistance by way of compassionate appointment so as to sustain the family, the request ought to have come immediately after medicially decategorisation especially when the applicant had three sons who were elder to the applicant. Moreover, the fact that applicant had three more elder brothers, was rather suppressed at the time of making request for appointment of the applicant. Sri Ram Singar may not be justified in disowning suppression of material fact by saying that he put the thumb impression without knowing the contents of declaration. No satisfactory explanation has come as to why the request for compassionate appointment of either of elder brothers of the applicant, was not made soon after the medical categorise. It is true that such request for compassionate appointment made be entertained, in suitable cases, after lapse of time but this does not appear to be one of such cases. I do not find anything wrong in the impugned order, which is being impugned in this O.A. is dismissed but with no order as to costs." 12. Further more the declaration given by Sri Ram Singar (Undated) is appended as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. It reads thus: @ Hindi @ 13. I do not find anything wrong in the impugned order, which is being impugned in this O.A. is dismissed but with no order as to costs." 12. Further more the declaration given by Sri Ram Singar (Undated) is appended as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. It reads thus: @ Hindi @ 13. A perusal of the aforesaid declaration given by Sri Ram Singar, the father of the petitioner, shows that apart from his ownself, his wife, his son Visheshwar Nath, the applicant and unmarried daughter Km. Prem Pati only are as his family members. In paragraph 5 of the declaration he has stated that he is moving the application for appointment of his only son Vishehwar Nath for compassionate appointment in the railway on Class-IV post. 14. In this case not only the petitioner has concealed the material facts i.e. about his the three elder brothers and his mother could have been given appointment on compassionate ground, had they made a request at the relevant time when his father, Ram Singar, had been medically decategorised. It is clear that even Ram Singar, also concealed the material fact for the purpose of obtaining compassionate appointment by making a false declaration that Visheshwar Nath, the applicant,) was his only son. Admittedly, the family has been able to sustain itself for about twelve years after medically decategorisation of Ram Singar, the employee and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is in immediate need of compassionate appointment or the family is living in destitute. 15. For the reasons stated above, we affirm the orders dated 27.7.2004 and 22.1.2007. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. Petition dismissed. _