THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.2726 of 2010 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) This writ petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (for short “the Tribunal”), dismissing M.A.No.479 of 2009 in O.A.No.866 of 2009, by order dated 30-11-2009. The petitioner, who seeks compassionate appointment, has approached the Tribunal by contending that the mother of the petitioner, who is the widow of the deceased Central Government employee, had made the first representation in the year 1999 seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner herein. Thereafter, the petitioner had made number of representation and some of them are produced in the material papers. His contention is that though several representations were made, the respondents did not communicate any information to the petitioner and only sometime in the year 2009, he obtained information through the Right to Information Act, wherein he came to know for the first time that his case was recommended by the Committee for compassionate appointment. However, the appointment, as such, was not given to the petitioner and ultimately, he approached the Tribunal by the aforesaid O.A. The said O.A. was numbered and when it was coming up for admission and hearing, at that time, the delay in filing the O.A. was noticed and thereupon, the petitioner filed M.A.No.479 of 2009 along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for not approaching the Tribunal earlier. The said application was rejected under the impugned order of the Tribunal by finding that the explanation given by the petitioner is not convincing. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Solicitor General. A reading of the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of the delay shows that the petitioner had given detailed explanation as to why he could not approach the Tribunal earlier, which also includes the ground of his inability to raise finances. The petitioner had already produced before the Tribunal a copy of the note file, which the petitioner had secured through the Right to Information Act. The relevant portion of the note file with the endorsement, dated 07-02-2000, shows that his case was submitted to the Compassionate Appointment Committee. Thereafter, there was correspondence requiring driving licence of the petitioner etc., and the endorsement, dated 26-07-2004, shows that the individual does not have any experience in driving and also an endorsement to kindly approve and submit the old case papers to CAC only. Then, there is an endorsement of approval sometime on 27-07-2004. Ultimate endorsement, dated 03-08-2004, shows that in view of the orders of HO, his case need not be submitted to CAC, as the candidate was duly selected by CAC for Group-D post. However, none of these proceedings or orders are communicated to the petitioner. Be that as it may, the application seeking condonation of the delay was supported by a detailed affidavit of the petitioner. The respondents have not filed any counter affidavit to controvert any of the said averments. Basing on the oral arguments of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, the Tribunal rejected the M.A. on the ground that the explanation offered by the petitioner is not convincing. We are of the opinion that unless the aforesaid averments are appropriately controverted, the Tribunal ought to have accepted the said explanation by examining it on its own merits. The rejection of the application seeking condonation of delay under the impugned order was, therefore, not justified. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court and this court that the length of the delay is not material, but the explanation for the delay must be adequate. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal has not examined the matter from the point of view of the explanation of the said delay, especially in the background of the facts that the petitioner was never informed of any development relating to his representations and he had got the said information through the Right to Information Act. In the circumstances, therefore, we set aside the impugned order and remit the M.A. for fresh consideration to the Tribunal. The respondents are at liberty to file counter within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if they so choose. Thereafter, the Tribunal is requested to hear and dispose of M.A.No.479 of 2009 on its own merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Date: 10-02-2010 Prv