Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3533 (ALL)

Sunil Kumar v. Chief M. D. , B. S. N. L

2016-10-21

ABHAI KUMAR, DILIP GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT This petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 19 July 2016 by which the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') has rejected the Original Application filed by the applicant for grant of compassionate appointment as it was barred by limitation. The father of the applicant-petitioner Madan Lal, who was working as a Mason in the Telecommunication Department, died in harness on 26 March 2000. The petitioner moved an application on 5 July 2000 for grant of compassionate appointment. This application was rejected by an order dated 17 September 2005 which was communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 10 October 2005. The petitioner filed a non-statutory representation on mercy grounds on 3 November 2014 which was rejected by an order dated 18 December 2014. It is this order dated 18 December 2014 that had been assailed by the petitioner before the Tribunal. It needs to be noted that the petitioner had not assailed the earlier order dated 17 September 2005 rejecting his claim for grant of compassionate appointment. The Tribunal has rejected the Original Application filed by the petitioner for the reason that cause of action arose to the petitioner on 17 September 2005 when the application filed by him seeking appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected and the rejection of the subsequent non-statutory representation after almost seven years was of no consequence. It clearly transpires from the reading of the order passed by the Tribunal that only the order dated 18 December 2014 by which the non-statutory representation filed by the petitioner was rejected, had been assailed. The petitioner had not assailed the main order dated 17 September 2005. No explanation whatsoever had been offered by the petitioner for condoning the delay. The Tribunal, after noting that the time period prescribed for filing the Original Application was one year, has rejected the Original Application filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the limitation should have been counted from the date the non-statutory representation filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17 September 2005 was rejected. Sri B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has, however, stated that the Tribunal committed no illegality in rejecting the Original Application as it was filed beyond the period prescribed. We express our inability to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has, however, stated that the Tribunal committed no illegality in rejecting the Original Application as it was filed beyond the period prescribed. We express our inability to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any provision in the Rules for filing the non-statutory representation against the order rejecting the application filed by him seeking compassionate appointment. That representation was also filed after a period of seven years. The petitioner was actually aggrieved by the order dated 17 September 2005 by which his application for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected and cause of action arose to the petitioner on this rejection. The Original Application had to be filed within a period of one year. No explanation, much less a satisfactory explanation, had been offered by the petitioner for condoning the delay. There is, therefore, no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.