Sanjiv Khanna, J.

1. The present writ petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 16.9.2003 dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner No.2 Mr. Mukesh Kumar and his mother, Mrs. Savitri Devi. By the impugned order learned Tribunal upheld the order dated 8.2.2002 passed by the respondent rejecting the request of the petitioners for compassionate appointment of Mr. Mukesh Kumar in view of the death of his father Mr. Shiv Dutt. The petitioners thereafter filed a misc. application, which was also dismissed by the learned Tribunal by order dated 17.11.2003. This order is also impugned in the present writ petition.

2. Mr. Shiv Dutt, father of the petitioner No.2 was appointed as a book, binder in the Government of India Press, Faridabad on 19.12.1967. He expired on 18.1.2000 and at the time of death he was about 58 years old and had about two years to go before his retirement. The petitioner No.2 and his mother Mrs. Savitri Devi made an application dated 19.10.2000 requesting that the petitioner No.2 may be given compassionate appointment as his father had died in harness.

3. The petitioner No.2 was called for interview but after considering his case, vide letter dated 8.2.2002, the request for compassionate appointment was rejected. The reason given for rejection of the request in the aforesaid letter was that the family of late Mr. Shiv Dutt had received Rs. 2,41,870/- as financial assistance and were also entitled to receive family pension of Rs. 1975/- per month plus dearness allowance, The respondents were of the opinion that the amounts paid to the petitioners including the family pension was much more than the poverty line yardstick adopted in such cases. It was held that the petitioner's case was not deserving/meriting compassionate appointment in view of the guidelines issued in that regard by DP&T.

4. The petitioner No.2 and his mother after receiving the aforesaid letter dated 8.2.2002 made representations and thereafter filed an original application before the Tribunal.

5. The said application was contested by the respondents and by the impugned order dated 16.9.2003 learned Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the original application.

6. Learned Tribunal held that the application was barred by limitation as impugned order was passed on 18.2.2002 and the application was presented in the Tribunal on 7.4.2002.

7. However, the Tribunal also examined the matter on merits and found that as the family of the deceased government employee was getting regular family pension of Rs. 1975/- plus dearness allowance. Learned Tribunal referred to the government decision/policy fixing poverty line yardstick as a norm for appointment on compassionate grounds. Accordingly the original application filed was dismissed vide order dated 16.9.2003. A misc. application filed by the petitioners was also dismissed on 17.11.2003 after directing corrections of some errors.

8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Rs. 2,41,870/cannot be regarded as financial assistance but was payment made for legitimate dues payable to, the legal heirs of the deceased employee. He relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Kaur and Anr. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors., (2000) 6 SCC 493. He also relied upon decisions of the Supreme Court holding that matters of compassionate appointment must not be allowed to linger on for years. (Refer: Sushma Gosain and Ors v. UOI & Ors., AIR 1989 SC 1976 and Phoolwati v. UOI & Ors, AIR 1981 SC 469). The counsel also submitted that the Tribunal was not right in dismissing the original application on the ground of limitation as representations had .been made by the petitioners after receipt of communication dated 8.2.2002 and as there was no reply to the said representations, the original application was filed before the Tribunal on 7.4.2004.

9. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the case of the petiti