Compassionate appointment denied due to delay, prior refusal indicating no immediate destitution, not a vested right exercisable after years.

ORDER

The instant OA has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking relief to set aside the impugned order dated 14.10.2015 served upon the applicant in February 2016, and to direct the respondents to appoint the applicant No. 2 under dying-in-harness rules in the place of his deceased father in concerned department and to award cost.

2. The fact of the applicant is that the husband of applicant No. 1, and father of applicant No. 2 late raj Bahadur Singh was Points- man Grade „A‟ in the respondent department and he died on duty on 13.02.2000 leaving behind his widow, three minor sons and a minor daughter and another son from his first wife. Initially the applicant No. 1 was offered an appointment on compassionate ground on 12.10.2001 after due process, but she declined the offer vide letter dated 24.12.2001 on the assurance that the job will be given to one of her son on attaining majority. After that the applicant No. 1 applied for her eldest son Hemant Kumar for compassionate appointment on 18.05.2009 which was received in the office on 22.05.2009, but no action was taken by the respondents on the said application. Another application was filed on 26.09.2014 by the applicant No. 1 to give compassionate appointment to her second son Dinesh Kumar and sent the same by registered post to the respondents. Reminders to the same were sent by applicants letter dated 13.10.2015, 31.10.2015, 06.11.2015 and as there was no action on the said applications, under RTI on 07.12.2015 the applicant asked for certain information. And not being satisfied with the reply they approach the RTI Appellate Authority on 08.01.2016. Thereafter, they received an envelope dispatched on 11.01.2016 from the PIO with a covering letter dated 08.01.2016 containing the order dated 14.10.2015 rejecting the claims of the applicants on the ground of delay, which is the order impugned.

3. The case of the applicant is they had been continuously trying the compassionate appointment, but they were not given the same, and the law is very clear that General Manager of the Zonal Railway is authorized to condone delay beyond five years for compassionate appointment and as the husband of applicant No. 1 died in harness, so her son has a right to get compassionate appointment, so their OA should be allowed and the reliefs claims should be granted.

4. The respondents have filed counter affidavit on notice, wherein the basic facts of the case are not denied, but the respondents insists that they have examined all the aspect of the case and as the applicant No. 1 had first submitted an application on 21.04.2000 for herself after her husband had died on 13.02.2000 for compassionate appointment. And concerned Welfare Inspector conducted a requisite inquiry and applicant was called for screening test on 28.09.2001 and found suitable and her case was sent to the concerning section for appointment, but applicant did not turn up nor she had submitted any refusal application for not accepting the job and had never informed unwillingness for not joining the duty. They also denied the averment that any assurance was given to her that after attaining majority any of her sons will be given job. They further say that the date of birth of Shri Vinod Kumar, who is the son of the deceased employee form his first wife is 09.09.1978 and he was class 9^th passed and was eligible for appointment on compassionate ground at the time of the death of his father. And compassionate appointm