Timely action is essential in legal proceedings; undue delays can result in dismissal of claims for relief, particularly in administrative matters.

JUDGMENT

[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)--We had heard the matter at some length on the previous date i.e., 11.01.2022. After hearing Mr Ujjwal Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the said date, the following was recorded:

"2. This is a writ petition directed against the order dated 07.09.2018, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [in short "the Tribunal"] in O.A.No.10/2016.

3. First and foremost, we are unable to gather as to why there has been a delay in bringing up the present writ petition.

3.1. Mr. Ujjwal Goel, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that the writ petition was filed on 07.03.2019. There is, however, nothing on record to show that the writ petition was filed on 07.03.2019.

3.2. According to Mr. Goel, upon filing the writ petition, diary no.211540 was allocated to the matter by the Registry.

3.3. The Registry will submit a report as to when the writ petition was filed, in the first instance.

4. That apart, the main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent i.e., New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) wrongly did not grant compassionate appointment to him as a Beldar.

4.1. It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner died in harness on 19.12.1999. It is also not in dispute that, at the relevant time, the petitioner had not attained majority. The petitioner attained majority in 2003.

4.2. The record also shows that the petitioner was, admittedly, recommended for compassionate appointment on 20.12.2007. The petitioner's name was put down at serial no.3.

5. The Tribunal has ruled against the petitioner, on the ground of delay and laches.

5.1. Unfortunately, the list of dates, both filed before the Tribunal and this Court, is woefully deficient. It is the lack of preparation in the matter, which has made it very difficult for us to ascertain the correct facts.

5.2. We have, repeatedly, asked Mr Goel as to, when were the representations filed seeking appointment to the post of Beldar on compassionate ground. This question was put to him as, according to list of dates filed, both before this Court and the Tribunal, the first representation appears to have been made on 18.08.2003.

5.3. Thereafter, there is no reference to any representation; instead a bald assertion is made that the petitioner visited the office of the respondent to ascertain the status of his appointment on compassionate ground.

5.4. It appears (and it is the assertion of the petitioner) that the Right to Information (RTI) route was accessed by him in September 2012. Pursuant to the RTI route accessed by the petitioner, it appears that, on 10.10.2012, the petitioner obtained the information that his name had been recommended by the competent authority for appointment on compassionate grounds.

5.5. The petitioner's claim is that, thereafter, he visited the office of the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds. Concededly, after 10.10.2012, when the petitioner became aware of the fact that his name had been shortlisted for compassionate appointment on 20.12.2007, no steps were taken to initiate a legal process. The original application was filed with the Tribunal only on 18.12.2015. There is a gap of nearly three years, between 10.10.2012 and 18.12.2015.

5.6. The record also shows that the petitioner sets up a case that he made representations, thereafter, on 31.10.2012, 27.02.2013/28.02.2013 followed by representations dated 20.09.2013, 23.03.2014, 12.08.2014, 25.08.2014 and 23.09.2014. Pertinently, representations dated 27.02.2013/28.02.2013, 25.08.2014 and 23.09.2014 are not even on record.

5.7. It is also the case of the petitioner that, once again, a RTI application was submitted on 03.12.2014. This RTI application received a response from the Public Informatio