SMT. P.K. THAKKAR AND SHRI K.K. THAKKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, GUJARAT CIRCLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS OA was originally filed by the widow of late Shri K.P. Thakkar, who was a Postman at Saijpur Bogha PO who died on 09 -11 -2006 at the age of 53 years while in service, after a prolonged illness. The applicant's grievance is that although she had applied for appointment to her son Shri Kalpesh P. Thakkar on compassionate grounds, the respondents rejected that prayer. She further alleges that rejection of her application for appointing her son on compassionate grounds was not communicated to her and that she had to obtain the details of such rejection by way of an application under the RTI Act 2005 and she took up this matter in the Dak Adalat. Accordingly she received Annexure -A communication informing her that the Circle Relaxation Committee had considered her son's case for appointment in Group D post on 24 -12 -2008 and that her son was not in the list of persons recommended by the Circle Relaxation Committee. The applicant further states that the respondents took wrong standards for assessing the merit of her application for compassionate appointment. It is also alleged that the respondents have wrongfully treated the terminal benefits the family had received and also did not take into the account of the huge debts she had incurred for the expenses of her husband's treatment and the marriage of her three daughters and for the social obligations in connection with those marriages. She further states that in order to pay off the debts she had to sell her house property to one Shri B.A. Kotak for Rs. 2,01,000/ - which was just sufficient to meet only the debt outstanding in 2008. According to her, her son Shri Kalpesh P. Thakkar though having 8th standard pass qualification, possesses a valid driving license and he would be useful for driving the motor vehicles of the respondent department which are lying idle for want of enough number of drivers. In this OA she prays for the following reliefs: Your Lordship be pleased

(2.) MR . S.C. John, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Joy Mathew, learned counsel for the respondents were heard. Mr. Joy Mathew referred to S.S. Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh : AIR 1990 SC 10, Hukam Raj Khinvsara v. Union of India and Ors. : AIR 1997 SC 2100, Union of India and Ors. v. M.T. Latheesh : (2006) 7 SCC 350 and a decision dated 21 -7 -2011 of this Tribunal in Mr. Bava Baldevger v. Union of India and Ors. in EA/12/2011 in OA/383/2006. At the outset of his arguments Mr. Joy Mathew, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this OA is barred by limitation. In support of his contention he pointed out that the Circle Selection Committee which considered the applicant for appointment in this case had taken a decision on 24 -12 -2008 and the same was communicated to all the applicants for appointment on compassionate grounds on 06 -1 -2009 vide Annexure -R/2. Therefore, according to Mr. Joy Mathew, the applicant cannot approach this Tribunal with present OA which was filed on 10 -6 -2013 after a lapse of more than four years. Mr. S.C. John, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that no communication in the nature of Annexure -R/2 was received by the applicants and that the applicants came to know about the rejection of their request for compassionate appointment only vide impugned Annexure -A communication dated 27 -3 -2012 which they received in response to an application filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is difficult to believe that the applicants were unaware of the rejection of their application because Annexure -R/2 clearly shows that copies of the same has been marked to the applicants for compassionate appointment the through Senior Superintendent of Post Office/Superintendent of Post Offices concerned. The applicant's husband having been a postal employee, in all probabilities, such communications must have been delivered to them.

(3.) REFERRING to S.S. Rathore's and Hukam Raj Khinvsara's cases (supra) Mr. Joy Mathew submitted that the present application is hopelessly barred by limitation. On the other hand, Mr. John, referring to Annexure -A/5 (colly.) submitted that the applicants had been repeatedly making requests to respondent No. 2 on compassionate grounds and also by the representation dated 02 -8 -2011 and that only on 17 -1 -2012 they received the last communication from the respondents informing that the request has been rejected. If this argument of Mr. John is to be accepted, the applicants ought to have approached this Tribunal within a period of one year from 17 -1 -2012. However, as noted earlier, the OA was filed only on 10 -6 -2013, after the expiry of the limitation prescribed in Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. Section 21 reads as follows: