##PAGE1##

1

(Reserved on 20.04.2026)

Central Administrative Tribunal

Allahabad Bench, Allahabad

****

MA No. 4558 of 2025

In

Diary No.5139 of 2025

This the 04^th Day of May, 2026.

Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J)

Anil Kumar aged about 45 years, S/o Late Sri Krishna Kumarm R/o Village

Rampur (Dhab), Post-Ramchandipur, District-Varanasi.

….Applicant.

By Advocate: Mr. A.D. Singh.

Versus

1. Union of India through its General Manager, North Eastern Railway,

Gorakhpur.

2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Eastern Railway, Lucknow.

3. Divisional Personnel Officer, North Eastern Railway, Lucknow.

.…Respondents.

By Advocate: Mr. Anil Kumar.

ORDER

The applicant has approached this Tribunal under

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking

quashing of the impugned order dated 21.08.2009 passed by

respondent no. 3 and for a direction to the respondents to

consider and grant compassionate appointment to the

applicant. The reliefs prayed for by the applicant are as

under:–

“(i) Quash the impugned order dated

21.08.2009 passed by respondent no.3

(Annexure A-1 to Compilation No.1).

Shakuntala Singh

2

(ii) Direct the respondents to consider and

provide the compassionate appointment to

the applicant on any place or post at

anywhere with all consequential benefits.

(iii) Grant such other relief as the applicant

might be found entitled to, in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

(iv) Allow the original application with cost of

the proceeding in favour of the applicant

from the respondents.”

2. The brief facts of the case, as emerging from the

record, are that the applicant, Anil Kumar, has filed the

present Original Application (Diary No. 5139 of 2025) along

with a delay condonation application challenging the

impugned order dated 21.08.2009 passed by the competent

authority whereby his claim for compassionate appointment

was rejected. The case of the applicant is that his father, a

railway employee, went missing during service and was

subsequently treated as dead, whereafter the applicant and

his mother pursued the matter before the respondents for

grant of family pension as well as compassionate

appointment. It is stated that despite repeated

representations, no final decision was taken for a long

period, compelling the applicant to approach this Tribunal at

a belated stage. The delay in filing the O.A. (Diary No. 5139

of 2025) has been sought to be explained on the ground that

the applicant was continuously pursuing his claim before the

authorities, was under financial hardship, and was under the

bona fide belief that his case would be considered in terms of

the Railway Board circulars.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the

delay in filing the O.A. (Diary No. 5139 of 2025) was neither

intentional nor deliberate, but occurred due to bona fide

Shakuntala Singh

3

reasons beyond the control of the applicant. It was submitted

that the applicant was continuously pursuing his claim and

was given assurances that the matter would be considered. It

was further contended that the applicant is facing financial

hardship and the delay deserves to be condoned in the

interest of justice. He further submitted that vide impugned

order dated 21.08.2009, the case of the applicant was

considered with reference to his mother, however,

subsequently, benefits were sanctioned in favour of his

mother vide order dated 13.01.2010, and the death certificate

in respect of the applicant’s missing father was issued on

14.09.2021. It was thus contended that, in view of these

subsequent developments, the delay cannot be attributed to

the applicant and deserves to be condoned.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the

O.A. (Diary No. 5139 of 2025) is hopelessly barred by

limitation. It was contended that the impugned order was

passed in the year 2009 and the applicant has approached

this Tribunal after an inordinate delay. It was further

submitted that repeated representations do not extend

limitation and compassionate appointment cannot be claimed

after such lapse of time.

5. Learne