By the Court.—Heard Sri Anand Swaroop, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Railways.

2. The petitioner has come up assailing the non-consideration of the petitioner for compassionate appointment after the medical de-categorization of his late father in the North-Eastern Railways, Gorakhpur-respondent. The petitioner had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal for this relief but the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition as not maintainable on the ground that the petition was barred by laches as there was no explanation as to why the petitioner did not take steps for seven years in spite of the allegations against his earlier counsel.

3. We may put on record that the petitioner had earlier filed a claim petition before the Tribunal which was disposed off by the Tribunal directing the concerned Authority to consider the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner. This order was passed in Original Application No. 926 of 1994 that was disposed off on 1st November, 2000. According to the petitioner, the said order was not complied with and therefore, he engaged a counsel to file a Contempt Application who did not appropriately inform him about the proceedings and later on the petitioner came to know that an order had been passed declining the claim of the petitioner by the respondent-Railways on 1/2.1.2001. A copy of the said order has been filed as Annexure-2 to the counter-affidavit of the respondents. No contempt application came to be filed by his counsel.

4. Since the claim petition was dismissed on the ground of limitation and laches, the petitioner filed this writ petition and through an amendment has also prayed for quashing of the order of 2001 and for a direction to the respondents to grant the benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner. A prayer to set aside the order of the Tribunal has also been made.

5. Instead of proceeding to examine the issue of laches, on the ground whereof the Tribunal refused to entertain the claim petition of the petitioner, we have ourselves gone through the records that are available in the pleadings before us. We find that the Railways have declined the benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the ground as is evident from the order extracted hereinunder :

“As per the Railway Rules, only if an alternate job cannot be provided to an employee after his medical de-categorization, he may be allowed to retire on medical ground after which his sons or dependents can be considered for compassionate appointment. Since, an alternate post of equivalent grade was offered to Shri Manager, therefore, his request for providing job to his wards and dependents does not arise. As far as his contention to retire w.e.f 12.7.1993 is concerned, this is also not acceptable as he cannot be retired on medical ground because he has been offered an alternative job of equivalent grade. No voluntary retirement can be accepted from a back date. Moreover, the date of application given in his representation exhibited as Annexure A-4 is 24.5.1994. Therefore, as per his own admission, he was an employee on 24.5.1994. Hence, his voluntary retirement cannot be accepted from an earlier date which is not only permitted under the rules but bad in law also. He was on the rolls of the Railway and continued to do so till 31.7.1994.

After considering all the aspects and records available on the subject, the undersigned finds no merit to consider his representation to provide a job to his ward and accordingly, it is rejected. The settlement benefits and all other dues have been paid to the employee treating him to have superannuated on 31.7.1994 which is correct. There is no ground to interfere with this order or to antedate his date of retirement to 12.7.1993 as has been claimed by him. The representation is disposed accordingly.

Please acknowledge receipt.”

6. Assailing the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner on me