ORDER :

Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.

1. Instant petition has been filed against the order dated 30.07.2021 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Original Application No.291/219/2018 whereby the Tribunal dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner.

2. Skeleton facts of the case are that the mother of the petitioner Smt. Nirmala Lakhiwal expired on 25.07.1995 while she was working as Ex.AA-TAO-AII. The father of the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner on 12.07.2002 before the authorities and the respondents-authorities intimated the father of the petitioner vide letter dated 11.12.2002 that the application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been kept under the category of 'future case' and accordingly the name of the petitioner was registered for appointment on compassionate ground in future. The father of the petitioner was advised that the application for compassionate appointment would have to be submitted by the petitioner in his own hand writing immediately after attaining the age of majority by him.

3. Thereafter, father of the petitioner remarried on 07.05.2001 and petitioner, after attaining the age of majority, submitted an application for compassionate appointment, which the same was rejected by the respondents on 26.10.2017 by observing that the compassionate appointment is not permissible in the case of the petitioner as the father of the petitioner (widower) has remarried. Against the rejection order dated 26.10.2017, the petitioner filed original application before 'the Tribunal' with a prayer for directing the respondents to grant him compassionate appointment.

4. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the Tribunal observed that the mother of the petitioner expired on 25.07.1995 and thereafter, the family of the petitioner was maintaining themselves for more than 24 years. Thus, it cannot be believed that the petitioner and his family were said to be dying in harness and the petitioner is able to maintain himself and thereby the Tribunal dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner by observing that the rejection order dated 26.10.2017 does not deserve any interference and the application suffers from merit and accordingly original application was dismissed vide order dated 30.07.2021.

5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order dated 30.07.2021, the petitioner has filed this petition before this Court.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. From the facts narrated in the writ petition, it emerges out that the deceased-employee expired on 25.07.1995 and thereafter father of the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner after a lapse of 6 years i.e. on 12.07.2002. The said application was kept pending by the respondents under the category of future case and the father of the petitioner was directed to submit the application in the handwriting of the petitioner immediately after his attaining the age of majority.

8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner attained the age of majority in the year 2013 and thereafter, no application was submitted by him for compassionate appointment till 2015. It is worthwhile to mention here that as per Circular dated 18.04.1985, if any staff member dies in harness and where the widow cannot take up the employment and son/daughter is minor, the case may be kept pending till the first son/daughter becomes major or attains the age of 18 years. However, such cases can be kept pending for a period of only five years and after which appointment on compassionate ground will not be permissible.

9. Here in the instant case, the aforesaid timeline of five years expired in the year 2007 w.e.f. 11.12.2002, when the father of the petitioner was directed to submit the application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner in his own handwriting, after attaining the age of majority. It is tr