HEGH CGURT GF CHHATTISGARH AT EILASPUR §iyision Eench : Hatfbie Shri Dhirena‘ra Niishra‘ & Han’bie $hri RN. Chandrakar, JJ Writ PetitiOii ic) No. $28d of 2MG Petétioner : Deakumar Mogrei‘ aged about 32 years, 3J0 Late Skiii Siéai‘am Mogrei, Rio Budhwan Bazar, Bapu Upnagar, Bi!aspur, Tahsi! & Disirict-Bilaspur (0.6.) —Versus— Respondents 1. Union of India Thmugh Secretary Ministry of Railways Government of India, Ran Bhawan, New Delhi. Railway Board thruugh the Ehairman, Rai: Bhawan, New Deihi. 3. Genera! Manager, South East Cenira! Raiiway, Gffice af Genarai Manager‘ Raiiway Coieny, B§laspur {Q13} 4 Chief Personnei Offrcer, Seuth East Carma! Raihvay, Eiiaspur(C.G.) 29.1G201G: Mrr Prateek Sharma, counseJ for the netitioner. By this petition the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 5.10.2010 (Annexure PM) passed by the Centrai Administrative Tribunai‘ Jabaipur Bench, Circuit Sitting: Bilaspur, whereby the original application fiied by the petitioner herein seeking compassionate appointment has been dismissed. From the impugned order, it appears that father of the petitioner was working as Cleaner under the Chief Health inspector, Bilaspur. He was missing since 2.12.1986. He was having three sons, including the petitioner!appeliant. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 16.1 1 .2006. Respondent No.3 rejected the case of the petitioner Vide order dated 17.10.2008. The petitioner chalienged the above order of refusal of compassionate appointment on the ground that the Generai Manager alone was empowered to consider the case up to 20 years oid tn certain circumstances. The petitioner became major in the year 19% and therefore, his case was to be considered f. 2 V becauge his appiicaiion had beea submitted a¥ter more than ‘2 years of becoming major. Shri Prateek Sharma‘ Earned counsei for the pegétioner, has assaiied the abmre orcéer dazezj 1?.132Qi'3z‘5 QM}! cm the gmund that the ca$e of the znetitioner ought to have beam considered by a campaign? auimrity Le. General Manager and iejectéan a§ his dam by rewamiem No.4 is, without g‘urisdictien. The Tribunal, rejecting the mterpretation of Circuiar dated 24.5.2001 canvassed by the applicant’s counsei‘ dismissed the originai appiicaticm wéth the foHawing abservations: "The Mgrpretafion of REE N0.24¢‘2001 éatad '24.§.2D{)1, canvassed by the Appéicant’s sounsel, cannot ¥3e accepted. in fhe preeent ease, the Fxgpiicant’s faiher was missing since 1986‘ The iégmiisam had himseif became majqr m ihe year Bab and he appheé far mmgaassmrgate appmmment ash; in she year EGue. 3: §s‘ thus dear that me Amgécani‘s case is hopeiessiy time barred am? is séiaie. ’i‘he Qeendaeis have right‘y re'eeieeé the ciaim Amman: The Qaspsnsenis have regemed ihe cfaim of the Apphsant mt omy en the ground of Eims’iation.‘ but aiso on the groum ihat since the famiiy had survived fur such a long period, there was no need of compassianate appointment at such ah iate stage. We find that bath the gmunds stated in the Order dated 11162008 (Annexure Rafi) ' are unassaiiabie." a a Having hearé learned counsei for the petitioner‘ having perused the impugned order, considering the inerdinete deiay in approaching the respondents for ciaiming compassionate appointment, we deciine to exereise jurisdiction under Articie 228/22? of the Constitution of indie against the impugneci order The petition is, accordingiya eisrnésseci at rhe admission siege itseii. Sd/_ r ha r sw— Dhirendra Mishra r RANGANATH CHANDRAKAR Judge Judge sp