IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17748 of 2009(S) -------------------------- OA.208/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: --------------- M.A.ANILKUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. LATE M.ANTONY, PALARAVILA VEEDU, PANANGOD, VENGANOOR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.K.USHA SMT.P.USHAKUMARI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, GENERAL POST OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NORTH CIRCLE, KERALA. 2. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTST, DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 17748 OF 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext.P8 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.208/2008. The petitioner's father died in harness on 7.7.2001 while he was working under the respondents. His mother pre-deceased him. His only sister got employment under the dying-in-harness scheme because of the death of his mother, who was working under the Kerala Government. In 2000 itself, the petitioner got married. Claiming that he was a dependant of his father, he submitted an application for employment under the dying-in- harness scheme. The said application was rejected by the competent authority by Ext.P2 order dated 21.1.2002. He claims, he was filing representation before the various authorities claiming employment. Finally, he has chosen to approach the Tribunal only in 2008. The Tribunal felt that the application is barred by limitation. It noted the claim of the petitioner in the Original Application that last of his representations was made on W.P.(C) No.17748/2009 2 12.10.2003. After the rejection of his application by Ext.P2, there was delay of 1259 days in filing the Original Application. Noticing that, what is claimed is appointment on compassionate ground, the Tribunal took the view that the delay is fatal and therefore dismissed the application. The aggrieved applicant has preferred this Writ Petition. 2. Going by the facts, which we have already noted above, we feel that the view taken by the Tribunal on the above facts that the Original Application was barred by limitation is a plausible view, with which, this Court cannot interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps