GULAB KANWAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against order dated 26.10.18 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jodhpur Bench, dismissing an original application preferred by the petitioner questioning the legality of orders dated 31.7.2000, 9.10.01 and 12.2.16 issued by the Commandant, 19 Field Ammunition Depot C/O 56 APO, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.

(2.) The facts relevant are that the petitioner's husband Shri Narain Singh died while in service of the respondents on 25.6.98. As per the averments made by the petitioner, vide communication dated 6.3.99 she was informed by the respondents to make an application for appointment on compassionate ground if she so desire. The petitioner made the application but the same was not considered by the respondents. According to the petitioner, she used to visit office of the respondent after every six months and was assured by the respondents that she will be accorded appointment. According to the petitioner, she inquired about the fate of her application vide letter dated 29.1.16, in response whereof, vide communication dated 12.2.16, she was informed that her application has already been rejected vide order dated 31.7.2000 and information in this regard was also sent to her vide communication dated 9.10.01. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in rejecting the application seeking appointment on compassionate ground, the petitioner preferred an original application before the CAT accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay, which stands rejected by the order impugned as barred by limitation. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the communication dated 31.7.2000 and 9.10.2001 were never served upon the petitioner and she came to know about the rejection of the application only vide communication dated 12.2.16 and thus, the CAT has seriously erred in rejecting the application as bared by limitation. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji and Ors.: AIR 1987 SC 1353, learned counsel submitted that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred inasmuch as other side, cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non deliberate delay. Learned counsel submitted that merely on account of the application being filed belatedly, the CAT was not justified in rejecting petitioner's meritorious claim.