KETKU PRASAD YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 15.05.2C13 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench (Ranchi Circuit Bench) in O.A. No. 158 of 2011 (R). The father of the petitioner, Late Dineshwar Prasad Yadav was posted as Khalasi/Helper under IOW/MDP, Madhupur in the District of Deoghar and he died in harness on 07.10.2003. The mother of the petitioner is being paid family pension in accordance with law. The petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment alongwith other relevant documents and the educational certificates, but the application of the petitioner was rejected on 27.09.2005 on the ground that the investigation revealed that the petitioner failed in the matriculation examination whereas, he is claiming the post of Group 'C' on the basis of forged matriculation certificate.

(2.) Thereafter, another application was made by the mother of the petitioner on 17.01.2007 to the 2nd respondent to the effect that the petitioner is ready to take up compassionate appointment in Group D. Since, the respondent did not take any decision on the said representation, the petitioner sent legal notice through his lawyer on 28.03.2011 to the 2nd respondent. Alleging that no action has been taken by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 158 of 2011 (R) seeking to quash the order dated 27.09.2005 and also seeking for a direction to the respondent to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The said Original Application was dismissed on 15.05.2013 on the ground of limitation that the application was filed beyond the period of one year of the order passed by the authorities (dated 27.09.2005) and also holding that he has furnished forged Matriculation certificate. The order in the Original Application is challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. Manoj Tandon, submitted that the representation was made to the 2nd respondent to the effect that the petitioner is ready to accept even the post of Group D because he was failed candidate in the Secondary School Examination conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna and the same was not considered by the authorities. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner belongs to the weaker sections of the society and that he was claiming Class IV post and only due to illiteracy, the petitioner could not approach the Tribunal in time and while so, the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the application on the ground of limitation.