ORDER : Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with order dated 2.12.2016, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (in short “CAT”), Chandigarh (Circuit Bench at Shimla) in OA No. 063/00113/2016, titled Jai Parkash v. Union of India and Ors., whereby aforesaid Original Application came to be dismissed on the ground of limitation, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to set-aside the aforesaid impugned order as well as communications dated 1.6.2006 (Annexure P-3) and 10.3.2016 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Department of Posts. 2. For having bird’s eye view, certain undisputed facts, which led to the filing of the instant writ petition, are that father of the petitioner while working as GDBMP Bardhan w.e.f. 26.2.1981 suffered from brain tumor and as such, was declared disabled to the tune of 75% by the medical board. On account of aforesaid disablement, father of the petitioner was retired in the year, 2005, at the age of 54 years. On 26.5.2006, petitioner being son of the retired employee as detailed herein above, submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds, but same was rejected vide order dated 1.6.2006 (Annexure P-3). Despite there being aforesaid rejection, petitioner kept on filing representations, praying therein for his appointment on compassionate grounds. However, he was informed on 4.2.2011 that since his father had retired on medical grounds, he is not entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds. 3. On 13.8.2015, petitioner again filed representation making therein similar prayer, but same was replied to on 10.3.2016, by the department, informing that his case for compassionate appointment has already been rejected on 1.6.2006. After an inordinate delay of more than 10 years, petitioner being dissatisfied with the rejection of his case communicated to him vide communication dated 10.3.2016, approached the learned CAT by way of Original Application as detailed herein above, but same was dismissed vide order dated 2.12.2016. After six months of passing of order dated 2.12.2016, petitioner approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set-aside aforesaid impugned order passed by the CAT. Reply to the petition stands filed by the respondents, wherein prayer has been made for dismissal of the petition at hand on the ground of delay and laches. 4. After six months of passing of order dated 2.12.2016, petitioner approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set-aside aforesaid impugned order passed by the CAT. Reply to the petition stands filed by the respondents, wherein prayer has been made for dismissal of the petition at hand on the ground of delay and laches. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned by the learned CAT in the impugned order dated 2.12.2016, this court finds no illegality and infirmity in the same and as such, no interference is called for. Though Ms. Vandana Misra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that intimation with regard to rejection of the representation dated 13.8.2015, was given to the petitioner by the Department of Posts on 10.3.2016, and as such, limitation would start from that day, but aforesaid plea of her deserves to be rejected outrightly being devoid of any merits. True it is that petitioner had filed representation on 13.8.2015, which was replied to by the department on10.3.2016 (Annexure P-6), but bare perusal of the aforesaid communication clearly reveals that petitioner was informed that his case for compassionate appointment stands already rejected on 1.6.2006. Since respondent-department vide order dated 1.6.2006, had already rejected the request made by the petitioner for compassionate appointment, petitioner, if aggrieved, ought to have approached the competent court of law at that juncture only, but in the instant case, petitioner kept on filing the representations with similar outcome. No doubt, representation dated 13.8.2015, filed by the petitioner was replied to by the department on 10.3.2016, but as has been taken note herein above in the aforesaid communication, petitioner was only reminded of the decision already taken by the department on 1.6.2006, whereby admittedly case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected. 5. By now it is well settled that repeated representations would not extend the period of limitation. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 prescribes the period of limitation of one year from the date of cause of action, which can be further extended by six months. In the case at hand, factum with regard to rejection of the representation of the petitioner for compassionate appointment had come to the notice of the petitioner with the issuance of order dated 1.6.2006 (Annexure P-3), but yet he kept on filing the representations. In the case at hand, factum with regard to rejection of the representation of the petitioner for compassionate appointment had come to the notice of the petitioner with the issuance of order dated 1.6.2006 (Annexure P-3), but yet he kept on filing the representations. Limitation in the case at hand would start w.e.f. 1.6.2006, when petitioner was apprised of the decision of the respondent-department that he is not entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds. Mere issuance of communication dated 10.3.2016, wherein department again reiterated its stand, will not give any limitation and as such, no illegality and infirmity can be said to have been committed by the learned CAT while passing order impugned in the instant proceedings. 6. Compassionate appointment is given to family of the deceased employee to tide over the crisis, which was caused as a result of the death of an employee while in harness. Since in the case at hand, petitioner chose to remain silent for more than 10 years after rejection of this request made vide order dated 1.6.2006, it can be safely inferred/presumed that there was no immediate crisis in the family. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Government of India and Anr v. P. Venekatesh, (2019) 15 SCC 613 , has held that staleness of the claim takes away the very basis of providing compassionate appointment. Relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment read as under : “8. The primary difficulty in accepting the line of submissions, which weighed with the High Court, and were reiterated on behalf of the respondent in these proceedings, is simply this: Compassionate appointment, it is well-settled, is intended to enable the family of a deceased employee to tide over the crisis which is caused as a result of the death of an employee, while in harness. The essence of the claim lies in the immediacy of the need. If the facts of the present case are seen, it is evident that even the first recourse to the Central Administrative Tribunal was in 2007, nearly eleven years after the death of the employee. In the meantime, the first set of representations had been rejected on 3 January 1997. The Tribunal, unfortunately, passed a succession of orders calling upon the appellants to consider and then re-consider the representations for compassionate appointment. In the meantime, the first set of representations had been rejected on 3 January 1997. The Tribunal, unfortunately, passed a succession of orders calling upon the appellants to consider and then re-consider the representations for compassionate appointment. After the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting rejected the representation on 13 November 2007, it was only in 2010 that the Tribunal was moved again, with the same result. These successive orders of Tribunal for re-consideration of the representation cannot obliterate the effect of the initial delay in moving the Tribunal for compassionate appointment over a decade after the death of the deceased employee. This ‘dispose of the representation’ mantra is increasingly permeating the judicial process in the High Courts and the Tribunals. Such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do no service to the cause of justice. The litigant is back again before the Court, as this case shows, having incurred attendant costs and suffered delays of the legal process. This would have been obviated by calling for a counter in the first instance, thereby resulting in finality to the dispute. By the time, the High Court issued its direction on 9 August 2016, nearly twenty one years had elapsed since the date of the death of the employee. 9. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 , this Court held thus: “2...The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non- manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency.” 10. Bearing in mind the above principles, this Court held: “6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” 11. The recourse to the Tribunal suffered from a delay of over a decade in the first instance. This staleness of the claim took away the very basis of providing companssionate appointment. The claim was liable to be rejected on that ground and ought to have been so rejected. The judgment of the High Court is unsustainable. 12. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. In consequence, we affirm the judgment of the Tribunal dismissing the Original Application. There shall be no order as to costs.” 7. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above as well as law taken into consideration, this court finds no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned CAT and as such, same is upheld. As a consequence of which, present petition fails and dismissed being devoid of any merits. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.