MUMTAJ AHEMAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Anand Swaroop, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Railways.

(2.) The petitioner has come up assailing the non-consideration of the petitioner for compassionate appointment after the medical de-categorization of his late father in the North-Eastern Railways, Gorakhpur-respondent. The petitioner had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal for this relief but the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition as not maintainable on the ground that the petition was barred by laches as there was no explanation as to why the petitioner did not take steps for seven years in spite of the allegations against his earlier counsel.

(3.) We may put on record that the petitioner had earlier filed a claim petition before the Tribunal which was disposed off by the Tribunal directing the concerned Authority to consider the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner. This order was passed in Original Application No. 926 of 1994 that was disposed off on 1st November, 2000. According to the petitioner, the said order was not complied with and therefore, he engaged a counsel to file a Contempt Application who did not appropriately inform him about the proceedings and later on the petitioner came to know that an order had been passed declining the claim of the petitioner by the respondent-Railways on 1/2.01.2001. A copy of the said order has been filed as Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit of the respondents. No contempt application came to be filed by his counsel.