Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 257 (HP)

Surender Kumar v. Union of India

2016-03-15

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Petitioner, by the medium of this writ petition, has questioned the judgment and order made by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (Circuit at Shimla) (hereinafter referred to as ?the Administrative Tribunal?, for short, in O.A. No. 768/HP/2011 dated 24.5.2012, whereby the O.A. filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed, hereinafter referred to as ?the impugned judgment?, for short, on the grounds taken in the memo of the writ petition. 2. A brief narration of the conspectus of facts are that the father of the petitioner was appointed as Postal Assistant in the year 1980, in the respondent department, who died on 3.1.1998 while in service. At the time of his death, the petitioner was minor and on attaining the age of majority in the year 2002, he laid application for compassionate appointment, which was considered and rejected on 5.2.2008, vide Annexure A5 appended with the Original Application. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal and had sought quashment of order dated 5.2.2008 Annexure A5, whereby his appointment on compassionate ground was rejected. 3. The respondents have filed the reply to the Original Application. 4. The Tribunal, after noticing the facts of the case, held that the Original Application was barred by time for the reasons that the respondents declined the appointment on compassionate grounds to the petitioner on 5.2.2008 and he approached the Tribunal after a lapse of more than three years whereas the limitation provided in the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, for short ?the Act? is one and a half year. 5. In terms of the mandate of Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, an aggrieved person has to make an application within one year from the date on which final order has been made. Section 21 (3) provides six months' extension of time in case the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. It is apt to reproduce Section 21 (1) (a) and (3) of the Act herein. ?21. Limitation :- (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,- (a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in Cl. It is apt to reproduce Section 21 (1) (a) and (3) of the Act herein. ?21. Limitation :- (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,- (a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in Cl. (a) of subsection (2) of Section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made; (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or subsection (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in CI. (a) or CI. (b) of sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six. months specified in sub-section (2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he has sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.? 6. The respondents have filed the reply and averred that the compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of long period and it is not a vested right which, can be claimed at any time and offering of compassionate appointment, as a matter of routine, irrespective of the financial condition of the family of the deceased or medically retired government servant, is legally impermissible. 7. The Tribunal, after taking note of the facts in para 11 of the impugned judgment rightly held that the OA filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation. 8. It is apt to record herein that the purpose of granting compassionate appointment is just to provide assistance to the family, which has been deprived of by the earning hands. The aim and object of granting the compassionate appointment is to save the family from the social evils. The family of the deceased employee had been surviving for the last 14 years as the deceased employee died in 1998, application for compassionate appointment was made in the year 2002, claim of the petitioner was rejected in the year 2008 and Original Application for compassionate appointment was made in the year 2012. The very purpose of granting compassionate appointment has lost its efficacy. The Tribunal has also taken into consideration the said fact in para 12 of the impugned judgment. 9. Having said so, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly made the impugned judgment, needs no interference. 10. The very purpose of granting compassionate appointment has lost its efficacy. The Tribunal has also taken into consideration the said fact in para 12 of the impugned judgment. 9. Having said so, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly made the impugned judgment, needs no interference. 10. The writ petition merits to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any.