JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the Railways. 2. The petitioner feeling aggrieved with the judgment and order dated 29.4.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow (for short "the Tribunal") as well as the order dated 16.1.2009 passed by opposite party no.2 has preferred this writ petition. 3. Father of the petitioner, who was working as Khalasi under the opposite parties died in harness on 24.12.1990 leaving behind the widow, two minor sons and two minor daughters. The mother applied for compassionate appointment, but she was offered appointment on Group-D post of Sweeper on 11.5.1992. The mother did not accept the aforesaid appointment and so, she did not join on Class-IV post, which was offered to her. She made a request that except the post of Sweeper, she may be allowed to work on any other equivalent post but that request of the petitioner's mother was never accepted and the matter remained pending with the opposite parties till 1996. In the year 1996, the petitioner became major and so, mother of the petitioner moved an application on 4.1.1998 indicating therein that her son may be given appointment and she does not want any compassionate appointment. Nothing was done by the authorities and thereafter, a letter was written by the mother of the petitioner on 15.2.2000. Taking cognizance of the aforesaid letter, claim of the petitioner was rejected solely on the ground that the claim for compassionate appointment has been raised at a belated stage i.e. beyond five years. Nothing was said about the claim of the mother of the petitioner and neither any decision was communicated in that regard to the mother of the petitioner or the petitioner. After rejection of the claim of the petitioner on 16.1.2009, the petitioner preferred original application before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the original application vide judgment and order dated 29.4.2010 on the ground that compassionate appointment has been claimed at a belated stage. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Master Circular No.16 in respect of appointment on compassionate grounds dated 12.12.1990 has been ignored by the opposite parties and the opposite parties have failed to take into consideration the aforesaid circular and thereby rejected the claim of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Master Circular No.16 in respect of appointment on compassionate grounds dated 12.12.1990 has been ignored by the opposite parties and the opposite parties have failed to take into consideration the aforesaid circular and thereby rejected the claim of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that if the appointment has been claimed after a period of five years and within a period of ten years, then it was incumbent upon the authorities to have referred the matter to the General Manager but the matter was never referred to the General Manager by opposite party no.2 i.e. Divisional Manager, Railways and he proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the Railways, on the other hand, has submitted that the claim was raised at a belated stage. The mother did not make claim within a period of one year as contemplated under Clause-V (a) (vii) and therefore, there was no necessity for referring the matter to the General Manager and the Divisional Manager was competent to take the decision. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The claim of compassionate appointment in respect of the mother of the petitioner was considered and she was offered appointment on the post of Sweeper by means of order dated 11.5.1992. Since the mother of the petitioner belongs to the OBC category, therefore, she did not accept the appointment on the post of Sweeper and she gave a letter to the opposite parties to give her appointment on any other equivalent post except the post of Sweeper. She was ready to accept appointment but that was never done by the authorities and no alternative post was offered to the mother of the petitioner. Mother of the petitioner continued to raise her grievance before the authorities time and again, but up till 1996 she was not offered any alternative appointment as claimed by her. In the year 1996, the petitioner became major and after the petitioner became major, mother of the petitioner moved an application on 4.1.1998 indicating therein that her son may be given appointment, but the opposite parties did not consider the claim and they sat tight over the matter up till February 2000. In the year 1996, the petitioner became major and after the petitioner became major, mother of the petitioner moved an application on 4.1.1998 indicating therein that her son may be given appointment, but the opposite parties did not consider the claim and they sat tight over the matter up till February 2000. On 15.2.2000, another letter was given and thereafter the opposite parties again delayed the matter without any reasonable cause and proceeded to decide the claim of the petitioner by means of order dated 16.1.2009. The question of delay has been argued very vehemently by the counsel for the Railways but in the case in hand, we find that the Railways themselves are to blame for the delay caused by them in not offering alternative appointment to the mother and also not processing the claim of the son from 1998 or as admitted by them from February 2000 up till 2009. What prompted the authorities to make such a long delay in crystallizing and finalizing the matter and turn around and take a ground before the Court of delay. The party, who claims benefit of delay, has to be more alert and is supposed to take decision without any delay, but in the case in hand, the Railways themselves have delayed the matter and their inaction itself is indicative of the fact that the delay has occurred on account of their omission, therefore, the Railway Authorities cannot take the benefit of delay as pleaded by them. 8. Now, the question comes as to whether the case of the petitioner can be considered for compassionate appointment. 9. The Master Circular No.16 in respect of appointment on compassionate grounds details certain formalities to be observed while making appointment and if there is delay, then the matter has to be referred to the General Manager. Clause V (a) of the aforesaid circular reads as under: - "V. Time limit for making compassionate appointments: (a) Normally all appointments on compassionate grounds should be made within a period of five years from the date of occurrence of the event entitling the eligible persons to be appointed on this ground. This period of five years may be relaxed by the General Manager, subject to the following conditions. (i) The powers shall be exercised personally by the General Manager. It shall not be delegated to a lower authority. This period of five years may be relaxed by the General Manager, subject to the following conditions. (i) The powers shall be exercised personally by the General Manager. It shall not be delegated to a lower authority. (ii) The case should not be more than ten years old as reckoned from the date of death. (iii) The widow of the deceased employee should not have remarried. (iv) The benefit of compassionate appointment should not have been given at any time to any other member of the family or to a near relative of the deceased employee. (v) The circumstances of the case should be such as to warrant relaxation of the time limit of five years. (vi) The reasons for relaxing the time limit should be placed on record. (vii) The request for compassionate appointment should have been received by the Railway Administration as soon as the son/daughter to be considered for compassionate appointment has become a major, say within a maximum period of one year. The above delegation of powers is current upto 31.3.1992." 10. Reliance has been placed by the counsel for the Railways on Clause V (a) (vii) of the aforesaid circular, but it has to be seen that Clause V (a) (ii) also provides that the case should not be more than ten years old as reckoned from the date of death. Date of death of the father of the petitioner is 24.12.1990. According to the admission made by the opposite parties, the petitioner has applied on 15.2.2000, therefore, the application was received well within time i.e. within a period of ten years and as such, according to the above circular, the authorities were obliged to refer the matter to the General Manager, but since that has not been done, therefore, we find that the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained as the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the aforesaid aspect and proceeded to dismiss the original application. 11. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 29.4.2010 passed by the Tribunal and the order dated 16.1.2009 are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the Divisional Manager, Railways to refer the matter to the General Manager, who shall take decision in respect of compassionate appointment of the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 12. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.