UNION OF INDIA Vs. GAJENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent bringing on record the office memorandum dated 5th September, 2016. The Tribunal has allowed the claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment.

(2.) We had entertained the writ petition on two grounds, namely, with regard to the policy that may be applicable for the purpose of consideration of compassionate appointment of the respondent and secondly that the Original Application filed before the Tribunal had been entertained beyond the limitation as prescribed under the Central Administrative Tribunals Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed the said two points. Having considered the same, we find that the issue was of compassionate appointment and even if the Original Application had been filed a bit delayed, the same would not fall within the definition of an inordinate delay staking a claim with regard to compassionate appointment. Even otherwise, we do not find this to be a good ground to interfere on the facts in the present case.