IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 203 (S/B) of 2003 Mohan Chandra Bhatt S/o Late Ishwari Dutt Bhatt R/o Garvishali, P.O. Haripur Nayak, Bithoria No. I., Kusum Kheda Haldwani, Nainital … Petitioner Versus 1. Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench Circuit Sitting at Nainital 2. Chief Post Master General Uttar Pradesh 3. Director General Post Office Dak Bhawan New Delhi 4. Senior Superintendent of Post Office, District – Nainital 5. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Post and Telegraph, Government of India, New Delhi 6. Chief Post Master General Uttaranchal Circle Dehradun – 248 001. …Respondents Shri M.C. Kandpal, learned counsel for the petitioner Shri V.B.S. Negi, learned Standing Counsel (Central Govt.) Coram : Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. 1. By means of this writ petition moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 24.10.2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Branch Circuit Bench at Nainital 2 in the original Application No. 41 of 2002. The petitioner has also sought direction in the nature of mandamus to provide the job to the petitioner in the department on the basis of dying in harness rules and to give the job to the petitioner on the basis of compassionate appointment in the department. 2. It is evident from the record that the father of the petitioner was expired on 31.01.1988 after completing 39 years of service. The mother of the petitioner has filed application on 31.01.1988 for giving the job to the petitioner on the basis of dying in harness rules as the father of the petitioner died. The said application was rejected by the Circle Committee of the respondent. 3. Thereafter, two representations have been given on 28.07.1989 and 08.02.1990 to the authorities by the mother of the petitioner and by the petitioner respectively for providing the job to the petitioner under the dying in harness rules. The Chief Post Master General U.P. Circle Lucknow vide letter dated 17.04.1991 has stated that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been paid to the Family Members and no heavy liability to the family, therefore, there is no question of providing the job to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner had also give representations for being appointed on the basis of dying in harness. 4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Nainital vide letter dated 19.06.2002 (annexure-IX) 3 has mentioned that the application for employment of the petitioner on the basis of dying in harness had been rejected was communicated to the petitioner in the year 1991. Thereafter, 11 years has elapsed and the defendant is not competent to employ the petitioner after a lapse of 11 years, therefore, appointment cannot be given. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner moved an application no. 41 of 2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench Circuit Bank at Nainital. The Tribunal vide order dated 24th October, 2002 dismissed the case of the petitioner saying that the matter is 14 years old so the petitioner is not entitled to get the compassionate appointment. The Tribunal has also held that the original application is highly belated and time barred. 6. The Central Administrative Tribunal is created under the Central Administrative Tribunal Act and it has no power to issue writ or direction independently. Therefore, even otherwise the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable. Though the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not satisfy us on the ground of delay. However, it is stated that the appointment under the dying in harness rules cannot be claimed as a matter of right being a compassionate appointment. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that two sons are employed and the terminal benefit of a sum of Rs. 4 50,000/- has been paid to the family and there is no liability. 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 8. No order as to costs. (J.C.S. RAWAT, J.) (P.C. Verma, J.) 13th December, 2005 Shiv