ANEESA BEGUM Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 21.4.2004 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter in short called as the 'Tribunal') and further for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the son of the petitioner, namely, Nasir Khan, on compassionate ground on the death of her husband under the Dying-in-Harness Rules prevailing in the Railway Department.

(3.) The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition are that the husband of the petitioner, namely, Zahid Hussain Khan while working in the Railway department died on 26.10.1974, when her only son Nasir Khan was 26 days old as he was born on 1.10,1997 and when he became major in the year 1992. the application dated 15.10.1992 followed by reminder applications dated 12.2.1993, 27.12.1993, 18.2.1994 and 10.9.1994 were presented before the respondent authorities. Petitioner also sent a registered letter dated 15.2.1995 followed by another letter dated 5.5.1996, however, her claim was rejected by the authorities ex-parte on 4.7.1996 on the ;ground that "it is an old case". On meeting with the General Manager, Karmik, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur she was assured for considering her case for giving deployment, however, by letter dated 8.9.1997 she was informed that her claim has been rejected as she did not present application within two years after her son attained the age of majority. According to the petitioner, she had moved an application on 15.10.1992 itself, which was within two years, therefore, rejection of her claim was bad, more so, no time limit for giving appointment on compassionate ground was prescribed in view of the Railway Board's letter dated 22.6.1978. According to the respondents the application for and on behalf of the petitioner was received to the respondents on 28.5.1996 and 10.6.1996 only, which was beyond the stipulated period because as per service record of deceased employee he had a son of 2 years 9 months and 13 days old at the time of his death on 26.10.1974 as evident from the declaration given for and on behalf of the petitioner at the time of taking family pension, however, being aggrieved the petitioner filed original Application No. 1430 of 1998 before the learned 'Tribunal'.