Ram Bilash vs Divisional Rail Manager (Personal)

Dilip Gupta and Manoj Kumar Gupta, JJ.—The petitioner questioning the validity of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad dated 23 May 2016 rejecting the petition filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 19851 on the ground of limitation and laches, has approached this Court by means of instant petition.

The background facts in brief are that the father of the petitioner, a track man at Kannauj Station, North Eastern Railway, died on 3 July 2003 while in harness. Indradev, elder brother of the petitioner filed an application on 23 January 2005 seeking compassionate appointment. His request for compassionate appointment was rejecte by the respondents by order dated 7 July 2010 on the ground that he had filed forged educational testimonials in support of his claim. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application on 4 January 2011 seeking compassionate appointment for himself. The case of the petitioner is that it was followed by reminders dated 2 July 2011, 6 February 2012, 9 November 2012, 15 April 2013, 17 February 2013, 8 May 2014, 14 December 2014, 15 February 2015 and 5 September 2015. Ultimately, the petitioner approached the Tribunal, which, however, rejecte the petition by the order impugned.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal in rejecting the application on the ground of limitation and laches is highly technical. It is urged that the petition should have been decided on merits. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on various decisions, which will be referred to hereinafter.

The first decision on which reliance has been placed is Jeet Narain and another v. Govind Prasad and others, 2010 (3) ADJ 470 (SC), wherein an appeal preferred against the ex parte order of Assistant Consolidation Officer was rejecte as barred by limitation. The Supreme Court, having regard to the various factors borne out from the record, accepted the contention of the appellants that name of the opposite parties were entered as co-sharers in the revenue records behind their back by playing fraud. It was held that sufficient cause having been shown, the delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned.

Reliance has also been placed on a decision of Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh, 2000 (9) SCC 94 wherein delay of 679 days in filing the Special Leave Petition was condoned. The Supreme Court after considering the explanation furnished by the State of Bihar, which had filed the Special Leave Petition, was convinced that sufficient cause had been shown. It was noticed that the issues raised before it were of great importance and if not resolved, the judgement impugned was likely to affect not only the parties before the Supreme Court "but hundreds of other persons who are stated to be senior than the respondents". The next decision cited is by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Mukesh and another v. A.D.M., (F & R), Mathura and others, 2015 (8) ADJ 73 wherein this Court refused to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the authority condoning the delay in filing the restoration application.

Now coming to the facts of the instant case, it is noticeable that the father of the petitioner died on 3 July 2003. The application filed by the brother of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment was rejecte on 7 July 2010 on the ground that the claim was based on forged educational testimonials. The petitioner filed application seeking compassionate appointment on 4 January 2011. According to the petitioner, the respondents did not pay heed to the application moved by him compelling the petitioner to file repeated representations. The petitioner approached the Tribunal only in the year 2016. Copy of the original application filed before the Tribunal has not been brought on record and thus, it is not possible to ascertain the exact reliefs claimed therein. However, from the recitals contained in the impugned order of the Tribunal it transpires that the relief claimed before the Tribunal was not only seeking compassionate appointment for himself but also for quashing of the order dated 7 July 2010.

Under Section 21 of the Act the limitation for approaching the Tribunal is a period of one year from the date on which final order rejecting the claim has been passed or in case of an appeal or representation which remained undecided, within one year from the date of expiry of a period of six months when the appeal or representation was made. Concededly, the period of one year reckoned from the date of the rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment by order dated 7 July 2010, as also on account of non disposal of the representation filed by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment had expired in the year 2011 and 2012 respectively. However, the petitioner approached the Tribunal in the year 2016.

Although under sub-section (3) of Section 21 the Tribunal has the power to condone the delay in case sufficient cause is made out but what would be a ''sufficient cause'' for condoning the delay would depend on the facts of each case and the nature of right asserted. This Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the very claim for grant of compassionate appointment is by way of an exception to the general rule of recruitment to public service on basis of open competition. The object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succor to the dependents of the deceased Government servant to tide over the sudden crisis which had befallen on account of untimely death of the bread earner and thereby, save the family from destitution. For asserting such a right, it is a sine qua non that the claim is made with a sense of immediacy. The facts brought on record reveal that the father of the petitioner died on 3 July 2003, whereas the petitioner filed the application seeking compassionate appointment on 4 January 2011 and then again kept silent for several years and ultimately, approached the Tribunal in the year 2016. The only explanation furnished by the petitioner is that he had been making repeated representations without any avail.

It is now well settled that filing of repeated representations would not enlarge the limitation nor should the Court direct the authorities to examine a stale claim. In Union of India and others v. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59 the Supreme Court observed as under:-

"A Court or Tribunal, before directing ''consideration'' of a claim or representation should examine whether the claim or representation is with reference to a ''live'' issue or whether it is with reference to a ''dead'' or ''stale'' issue. If it is with reference to a ''dead'' or ''state'' issue or dispute, the court/Tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct consideration or reconsideration. If the court or Tribunal deciding to direct ''consideration'' without itself examining of the merits, it should make it clear that such consideration will be without prejudice to any contention relating to limitation or delay and laches."

In view of foregoing reasons, we are in full agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal that the petition filed in the year 2016 challenging order dated 7 July 2010 and seeking compassionate appointment was barred by limitation and laches.

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed but without any order as to costs.