JUDGMENT : Through Video Conferencing Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Navneet Sahay and learned counsel Mr. Gautam Rakesh representing the respondent Railways. 2. Applicant/ petitioner herein being aggrieved by the order dated 15.09.2015 passed in O.A. No. 051/00186/2015 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi has preferred this writ petition. The applicant had approached the learned Tribunal for a direction upon the respondents to give effect to the letter dated 28.10.1997 and process his application for compassionate appointment. Learned Tribunal found that the applicant’s father was medically de-categorized on 17.12.1996. He was offered alternative job, but instead of doing alternative job, he applied for voluntary retirement on 04.03.1997, which was accepted vide letter dated 21.04.1997 (Annexure-3). Thereafter, applicant’s father claims to have applied for compassionate appointment on 01.10.10.1997 (Annexure-4). However, the applicant approached the learned Tribunal in 2015 relying upon the letter dated 11.06.2015, written by his father to the Divisional Railway Manager for granting compassionate appointment to him. Earlier applicant’s father had applied for one Harendra Mohan Dayal for compassionate appointment. Learned Tribunal arrived at an opinion that the claim is totally stale having been raised after more than a decade. The original application was dismissed as being hopelessly barred by limitation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as late as 2015 the claim of the petitioner was entertained and there was no delay on the part of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent Railways has strongly opposed the prayer. He submits that the counter affidavit has been filed in the drop box yesterday. However, the same has not been instituted or brought on record. He submits that applicant’s father had not approached the authorities in 1997 rather for the first time he had approached in 2015, by which time no claim for compassionate appointment in lieu of medical invalidity of the employee could be lawfully raised in the light of the settled legal position. Even the name of the petitioner was not found in the declaration of the employee in the service career records regarding his dependants. Therefore, the writ petition is fit to be rejected. 5. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the facts and circumstances borne on the record. Even the name of the petitioner was not found in the declaration of the employee in the service career records regarding his dependants. Therefore, the writ petition is fit to be rejected. 5. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the facts and circumstances borne on the record. The writ petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment has been raised before the learned Tribunal in the year 2015 after 18 years of the acceptance of the voluntary retirement by his father. Apart from that, there is no plausible explanation for such gross delay. Under Section 21 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 a period of one year limitation is prescribed for approaching the Tribunal for any cause of action. Therefore, learned Tribunal was right in rejecting the original application as hopelessly barred by limitation. The impugned order dated 15.09.2015 passed by the learned Tribunal therefore does not suffer from any error of law or on fact. 6. Therefore, the writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.