The main legal point established in the judgment is that cases for compassionate appointment of the wards of medically de-categorised employees are to be considered only within a period of five years from the date of their medically de-categorisation, as stipulated by the Railway Board's circulars and orders.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as also learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24th March, 2015, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna, Circuit Bench at Ranchi, in O.A No. 271 of 2012(R), whereby the application filed by the petitioner for a direction upon the respondents to consider his case for compassionate appointment, has been dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

3. The facts of this case as detailed in the impugned order, lie in a short compass. Sri Jagdish Ram, the father of the petitioner, who was working as Diesel Assistant Loco Pilot, was sent for medical examination 12.04.2000 and after examination held on 19.04.2000, he was declared unfit for A1 and B2 categories, but found fit for sedentary job only. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner appeared before the Screening Committee and due to his inability in performing the alternative job, his candidature was rejected vide order dated 16.08.2000. The father of the petitioner gave application for VRS, which was accepted by office order dated 08.09.2000 and he was relieved with effect from 31.08.2000. According to the petitioner, his father applied for compassionate appointment in his favour on 29.11.2000 before the competent authority, but the copy of the application was misplaced by him. Thereafter, father of the petitioner made application dated 19.03.2009 for compassionate appointment of his son, i.e., the petitioner. However the case of the petitioner was rejected on 07.11.2009. The petitioner once again made application before the Compassionate Adalat at Dhanbad, which also turned down the request of the petitioner by order dated 07.12.2009. Thereafter the father of the petitioner filed the application under RTI Act on 21.02.2012, in response to which the reply dated 16.03.2012 had been given, giving the reason for rejecting the application, which has been brought on record as Annexure-12 to this writ application. This document shows that according to Railway Board''s letters detailed therein, the cases of wards of medically de-categorised employees are to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground only within the period of five years from the date of medically de-categorisation of the ex-employee. Since the application for compassionate appointment was filed after the period of five years, the same was rejected.

4. The petitioner claimed that his father had given an application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner to the competent authority on 29.11.2000 itself, which had been misplaced. Thereafter on 25.07.2011 he filed an application for providing a photostat copy of that application. In reply to tha the was allegedly given a photostat copy of an entry in a peon book showing his name. On the basis of the said entry in the peon book showing the name of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner filed O.A in the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming that application for compassionate appointment was given within time and accordingly, prayer for direction upon the respondent authorities to consider the case of the applicant for the benefit of compassionate appointment was made in the said O.A. The written statement was filed on behalf of the Railways in which the authenticity of the said document was questioned by the respondents stating that no such document was available with the respondents. The Central Administrative Tribunal has also noted in the impugned order that the copy of the peon book as claimed by the petitioner, is totally illegible and in a distorted condition and no conclusion regarding date and signature can be arrived at from perusal of the said document. The Central Administrative Tribunal has given conclusion that even if it is accepted that the father of the applicant had submitted the application on 29.11.2000, even then when his case was not considered, the applicant had not taken any initiative to challenge the s