O R D E R

PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

The applicant has filed this OA on 13.04.2021 stating inter alia that his father while working as Sorting Assistant prematurely breathed his last on 17.03.2003. Request for providing appointment on compassionate ground having not been considered, he approached this Tribunal in OA No. 1072/2012, which was disposed of on 31.03.2013 directing the respondent No.2 to consider his grievance for appointment on compassionate ground. His case was considered but the same was rejected vide order dated 28.01.2014 Thereafter, on 03.01.2020 and 24.12.2020, he filed representations to higher authorities against the said order of rejection but his representations having not been considered, he approached this Bench in the present OA with prayer to quash the order of rejection dated 07.02.2014 and to issue positive direction to give positive consideration for appointment in any Group-D post. According to Ld. Counsel for the applicant, after the death of the father of the applicant, the respondents were obliged to give due consideration for providing appointment on compassionate ground as has been given in many cases but the respondents made a departure in respect of the applicant’s case, which is highly illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory offending to the mandate enshrined in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is also stated that the respondents in compliance of the order of this Bench though consider but rejected his case on the ground that the applicant is married, which is against the rules and law certifying that a married son cannot be debarred from consideration for appointment on compassionate ground.

Respondents, by giving facts and picture of the matter, have opposed the very sustainability and maintainability of this OA on various grounds. Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents besides reiterating the facts and picture stated in the counter has opposed this OA on the ground of barred by limitation and the principle that delay forfeits the right for seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Accordingly, respondents’ Counsel has prayed that this OA being devoid of merit as also hit by the law of limitation, is liable to be dismissed.

After considering the submission of the parties, we have perused the pleadings and the documents placed in support thereof.

As per the compassionate appointment scheme, at the first instance, right accrues to the widow to seek appointment on compassionate ground. In the instant case, it is stated by the applicant that due to illness of his mother, she expressed her unwillingness to take the appointment and, therefore, appointment was sought in favour of the applicant but no such document has been produced by the applicant in support of the illness of his mother and had she ever submitted application in stating so. Be that as it may, the father of the applicant died on 17.03.2003 and after 9 (nine) years, i.e. in the year 2012, he approached this Bench in OA No. 1072/2012,which was disposed of on 31.03.2013 with direction for consideration of the case of the applicant. The respondents considered and rejected his claim and communicated to him in letter dated 28.01.2014. According to the applicant, he submitted representation to higher authorities after near about six years, i.e. on 03.01.2020 and 24.12.2020 and approached this Bench in the instant OA on13.04.2021 seeking to quash the order of rejection communicated in letter dated 07.02.2014 without any application seeking to condone the delay albeit Section 21 of the AT Act, 1985 clearly provides 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