Compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, not being a vested right, and the law of limitation and condonation of delay requires a liberal construction of the term 'sufficient cause' to balance substantial justice with technical considerations.

B.S. Chauhan, J.-

1. This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench dated 10.12.2002 by which the delay in filing the application has not been condoned, more so, the claim of the Petitioner for employment on compassionate ground has been rejected being raised at a belated stage.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that one Anthony Briganza had been serving the Respondent railways and died in harness on 29.7.1989. As there has been some dispute regarding his succession for the reason that the said deceased employee in his statement dated 28.1.1977 had stated that the Petitioner was not his wife and he had no relation with her. Disputes regarding succession of the retiral benefits, etc. of the deceased employee in Case No. 232 of 1992 were decided by the District Judge, Jhansi, in favour of the Petitioner vide judgment and order dated 15.12.1993. Against the said order an appeal was preferred by the aggrieved party which was dismissed vide order dated 28.4.1997. Petitioner filed an application first time seeking employment for her son-Petitioner No. 2 on 15.9.1998 (Annexure-9). Second application for same relief was filed on 24.10.1998 (Annexure-10). The authority concerned vide order dated 19.12.1998 (Annexure-11) rejected the said application on the ground that as per their circulars, etc. where an employee keeps more than one wife, second wife along with her children may share the dues with other widow due to the Court's order or otherwise on merit of each case but compassionate employment cannot be granted to the children of the second wife. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, Petitioner along with her son filed the O.A.S. before the Tribunal along with an application for condonation of delay on 7.3.2002. The said application has been rejected on the ground of delay of more than three years. More so observations have been made that compassionate employment must be sought within reasonable time from the death of the employee and it cannot be claimed after expiry of 13 years vide judgment and order dated 10.12.2002. Hence this petition.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that it was a fit case where the delay ought to have been condoned by the Tribunal considering the facts and circumstances of the case as the matter remained pending before a civil court for a long time.

4. There is no force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner for the reason that civil court has adjudicated upon the matter and decided finally on 15.12.1993 though the appeal was decided on 28.4.1997. There was no satisfactory explanation of delay for more than three years even after the order of the appellate court.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, AIR 1987 SC 1353, observed that when substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the reason that other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay.

6. The law of limitation is enshrined in the maxim - interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of Limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties, rather the idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.

7. Time barred cases should not be entertained by Courts as the rights which have accrued to others by reason of delay in approaching the Court, cannot be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay. The vested rights of the parties should not be disrupted at the instance of a person, who is guilty of culpable negligence. (Vide Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR 1974 SC 259 and K.R. Mudgal and Others