JUDGMENT

PARIPOORNAN, J. - Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. The Union of India, respondent in OA No. 204 of 1992 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur and the Railway Authorities, Northern Railway, have filed this appeal against the Order of the Tribunal dated 22-2-1993. The respondent herein as petitioner filed OA No. 204 of 1992 praying for quashing the orders denying him employment on compassionate grounds and further prayed that appointment may be given to him. The Tribunal by the impugned Order quashed the orders assailed before it and directed the respondents to reconsider the application of the respondent/applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds and provide him with an appointment, if he is otherwise found suitable within three months. Hence, this appeal by the Union of India and the Railway Authorities, Northern Railway.

3. We heard Dr Anand Prakash, Senior Advocate who appeared for the appellants and Mr Sushil Kumar Jain, Advocate for the respondent. The facts of this case lie in a narrow compass. One Ram Singh, a Senior Clerk in the Railways died on 12-9-1972 leaving behind his wife, two major sons and the respondent who was a minor aged 12 years then. The respondent passed the Higher Secondary Examination in 1983. Stating that he attained majority in 1980/1981, he sought appointment on compassionate grounds which was rejected by orders dated 21-9-1987, 19-6-1990 and 11-6-1991. The Authorities took the view that the application was beyond the period of limitation (five years), that the case of the respondent was not covered by the relevant rules, that at the time of demise of Ram Singh, there were two major sons of the deceased who did not seek employment and that the family was not in financial distress. The Central Administrative Tribunal referred to the last order dated 11-6-1991 wherein it was stated that since there were two brothers of the applicant who were majors at the time of demise of the father, an appointment on compassionate grounds could not be considered and held that the other reasons stated earlier - bar of limitation and that the respondent will not be covered by the rule, have been given a go-bye. It was further held that the rejection of the application of the respondent simply on the ground that two elder brothers of the applicant/respondent, who were majors, were available at the time of the death of the father, was unjustified and, therefore, the application of the respondent should be reconsidered and an appointment on compassionate grounds should be provided, if the respondent is otherwise qualified.

4. Appellants counsel laid stress on Rule V contained in the communication dated 12-12-1990 and contended that normally all appointments on compassionate grounds should be made within a period of five years from the date of occurrence of the event and, in no case, it should be more than 10 years from the date of the death. Further condition specified in the said communication is that the request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be received by the Railway Administration as and when the applicant becomes a major, say, within a period of one year.

According to the respondent, the above rules will not apply since Ram Singh died in 1972 and the respondent applied before the rules dated 12-12-1990 came into force. Counsel for the respondent contended that it is true that normally all appointments on compassionate grounds should be made within a period of five years from the date of occurrence of the event, but this period can be relaxed in exceptional cases.

5. It is common ground, that normally all appointments on compassionate grounds should be made within a period of five years from the date of occurrence of the event entitling the eligible persons to be appointed. In this case Ram Singh died on 12-9-1972. He left behind his wife, two major sons and the respondent, a minor aged 12 years then. The respondent attained majority in 1980/1981. There is no material