JAGDISH RAM Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's father T. No. 333 Mazdoor Sri Sahodar Harizan was employed in 222 ABCD based Ordinance Depot. C/o 99 APO (under Government of India), Ministry of Defence Installation since 15.4.1968. He expired on 1.5.1989 while in service leaving behind him his widow Smt. Dasi Devi, three daughters and the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an affidavit dated 30.9.1989 to the respondents claiming himself to be the son of the deceased and sought employment on compassionate ground. It appears that the petitioner's mother also made an application dated 8.1.1989 for appointment on some suitable post. The application of the petitioner's mother was rejected on the ground that she being a lady cannot be employed. The claim made by the petitioner for compassionate employment remained pending with the respondents. The petitioner came to be informed for the first time by means of letter dated 15.11.1996 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) that : "As per guidelines received from Head Quarters belated request for employment in relaxation of normal rules may be considered in exceptional cases upto 5 years. Since your case is over 5 years old, your document held by this office are returned herewith." On further pursuit of the matter the petitioner was served with another letter dated 18.6.1997 whereby he was informed that his case was not considered by the Board of officers in the light of more deserving cases' and now it cannot be entertained 'because it is very old'.

(2.) Aggrieved the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 843 of 1997. The Central Administrative Tribunal by its order dated 21.8.1997 rejected the O.A. in limine on the ground that it was a stale claim. Hence the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, of India challenging the orders dated 15.11.1996, 18.6.1997 and judgment dated 2.8.1997 (Annexures 4, 5 and 6) to the writ petition. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents.

(3.) We have had heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.