ORDER :

1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short “the Tribunal”) on 23.1.2020, whereby it dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner (O.A. No. 63/363/2018) for grant of compassionate appointment, on the basis of limitation, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

2. The father of the petitioner was working as Audit Officer in the office of Auditor General (Audit) and had rendered 28 years of service when he unfortunately died on 13.9.2012 leaving behind his widow and two children. The petitioner submitted written request for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate basis along with affidavit dated 19.8.2013. His case was considered by the competent Committee constituted for this purpose in its meeting held on 4.9.2013 but was rejected on the ground that he had secured less marks than the candidate who had been offered appointment. The petitioner was duly informed about this decision vide communication dated 11.9.2013 through registered AD letter.

3. Petitioner contended that such letter was never received by him so as to afford him cause of action for filing the Original Application before the Tribunal. However, the learned Tribunal rejected the Original Application by recording the following reasons:

“6. It is not in dispute that the case of the applicant was considered in the meeting held on 4.9.2013 and it was not found deserving as he secured less marks than the candidate to whom appointment was offered and decision was duly conveyed to him vide order dated 11.9.2013. The applicant did not challenge that decision and filed a belated representation which has been rejected vide order dated 12.4.2017. Perusal of the pleadings makes it clear that applicant has not given any reasons as to why after rejection order dated 11.9.2013, he had not approached Court of law. It cannot be believed that he was not aware of this fact because once he had moved an application for appointment on compassionate grounds, then he cannot be expected to remain mum and will not approach respondents to know law is no excuse. This has so been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court recently in the case of Prahald Pant vs. AIIMS, 2020 (1) SLR 431 (Para 43) where the Lordships have held that “Law of limitation is founded on public policy. The object of Limitation is to put a quietus on stale and dead disputes. A person ought not to be allowed to agitate his claim after long delay.”

4. It is vehemently contended by Mr. Romesh Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are totally perverse as there is no material on record to suggest that the order dated 11.9.2013 had ever been communicated to the petitioner.

5. This contention has been raised simply to be rejected as the respondents have placed on record despatch receipt showing despatch of said communication and postal receipt of registered AD to the petitioner on 11.9.2013.

6. Under Section 114 III. (f) read with Section 16 of the Evidence Act, 1872, a presumption can be drawn regarding service of notice and since notice in this case has been sent through registered post, the presumption of truth would apply through greater force as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Samittri Devi and Another vs. Sampuran Singh and Another, (2011) 3 SCC 556.

7. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides of limitation and reads as under:

“21. Limitation:

(1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application:

(a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made.

(b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made,