MAHESH SAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of the Central Administrative Tribunal impugned is 20 December 1999. The petition has been filed in March 2002. A delay of more than 2 years has not been explained satisfactorily.

(2.) THE petitioner Mahesh Sah claims that he ought to be appointed on compassionate ground on the principle of rule of harness. He filed a claim petition before the CAT claiming that his salary after March 1990 until April 1993. has not been paid. In so far as the record is concerned the petitioner was permitted to work in lieu of his father, who had fallen ill, and carry out his duty from July 1989 to mid March 1990. He was paid his dues in April 1990.

(3.) CLAIMING a job on the basis of rule of harness or as a compassionate appointment was never the case of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner attempted to unionise the matter and had a letter sent from the Union to the department of Post Offices. The letter of the Union is on record. The letter of the Union does not fairly give out the picture whether the petitioner was entitled to a job and be made regular or not. The petitioner had only been permitted as an indulgence to carry out the duties of his ailing father. The petitioner had never been appointed in lieu of his father.