ORDER :

Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.

1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition assailing the order dated 06.04.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench (M.P.), Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur, C.G. (for short, “the Tribunal”) by which the Original Application No. 203/119/2015 filed by the respondent/applicant had been disposed off directing the petitioners to reconsider the case of the applicant for grant of compassionate appointment sympathetically within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

2. The brief facts, as projected by the respondent before the learned Tribunal, are that the respondent’s father Ram Naresh Nishad, who was working as an Attendant cum Technician with the petitioners, had suffered medical disability and vide order dated 10.03.2010 he was discontinued from service with one month’s salary. Thereafter, the petitioners vide their letter dated 19.10.2010 had asked the respondent’s father to inform if any of his dependents have not opted for benefits of Employees Family Benefit Scheme (for short “the Scheme”), then the petitioners may conduct enquiry for grant of compassionate appointment. The petitioners have also asked the respondent’s father to inform whether any of the dependents has cleared 10th Class Examination and is not employed in Bhilai Steel Plant or any unit of Steel Authority of India. Time period was given to the respondent’s father to furnish the information upto 24.10.2010.

3. The respondent’s father expired on 19.05.2011. Thereafter, his mother submitted an application on 14.07.2011 for grant of compassionate appointment to her son who had cleared matriculation examination. In response to the application, case of the respondent was considered and rejected on 21.10.2011 as the respondent had not submitted any application for grant of compassionate appointment within 6 months and at that time, he should have cleared the matriculation examination, an essential condition which was not fulfilled by the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent filed the original application before the Tribunal and prayed for grant of compassionate appointment.

4. The petitioners had filed their return denying the allegations made in the original application and enclosed the Scheme for providing compassionate employment in Permanent Medical Unfit (for short ‘the PMU’) cases dated 23.05.2009 and also one time measure for providing compassionate employment in PMU cases dated 16.09.2009. It has also been contended by the petitioners that the original application is barred by limitation and no explanation has been given, and therefore, the application is deserved to be dismissed on that count alone. It has been contended that as per Clause 4 of the PMU issued on 23.05.2009, the dependents of ex-employee applying for compassionate appointment must have the minimum qualification of matriculation and application of the dependents should reach recruitment section of Bhilai Steel Plant within 6 months of declaration of the PMU due to diseases specified in the Scheme along with all educational and other certificates. It has been further contended that respondent’s father Late Ram Naresh Nishad was declared PMU on 23.02.2010 and was separated from the role of the company on 10.03.2010. It has also been contended that the Personnel Executive of the company had sent letter to the respondent’s father on 19.10.2010 at his permanent home address informing him to submit necessary information about dependents who can be given compassionate employment. But there was no communication in this regard from the respondent’s father or the family members of the respondent. It has been further contended that on 14.07.2011, the respondent’s mother had submitted an application for grant of compassionate employment which was rejected for the reason mentioned in the memo issued by the petitioner- company on 21.10.2011. It has also been contended that on the date of separation of the respondent's fa