THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Writ Petition No.28258 of 2007 Date: 30-01-2008 Between Syed Abdul Habeeb, S/o.Syed Abdul Hafeez, Aged about 69 years, Occ: Khalasi (under orders of removal from service), Railway Loco Workshop, South Central Railway, Lalaguda, Secunderabad R/o Hyderabad … Petitioner and 1. South Central Railway, Rep. by its General Manager, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad and two others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Writ Petition No.28258 of 2007 Oral Order: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Heard both sides. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order, dated 19-6-2007, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, at Hyderabad (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’), in dismissing the application M.A.No.189 of 2007 in O.A.S.R.No.707 of 2007, filed by the petitioner-applicant seeking to condone the delay of 1245 days in filing the O.A., seeking compassionate allowance in terms of Rule 65 of Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1973. 3. It appears, the applicant was disengaged from service, by order dated 22-10-1975, on the ground of unauthorized absence. It is his assertion that in such cases he was entitled to compassionate allowance, which was denied to him for all these years. Having come to know the legal position, he filed the present O.A., after a long gap of 9 years. 4. In fact, on the ground that proper reasons are not explained, the miscellaneous application in the O.A., could have been dismissed if the Tribunal was not satisfied with the reasons assigned by the applicant for filing the O.A., for such an inordinate delay. 5. But, it appears that the O.A., itself was dismissed by the Tribunal by recording its views on merits. This, in our considered view, is not proper. The limited sphere of the Tribunal to enter into the controversy is whether to condone the delay or not. For that, the Tribunal or this Court need not delve into the merits of the case. 6. Another aspect to be looked at is that this is a case filed by the applicant with the legal aid provided by the Legal Services Authority. In such cases, this Court expect the Tribunal to be a little more liberal while passing the orders on applications like the present one. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we feel it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the O.A. However, on merits, it is not proper for this Court to express any view at this stage, inasmuch as, this exercise, in fact, has to be made by the Tribunal. 8. Therefore, we feel it expedient to remand the matter back to the Tribunal to express its view on merits after numbering the O.A. 9. In the result, the application M.A.No.189 of 2007 in O.A.S.R.No.707 of 2007 before the Tribunal is allowed condoning the delay in filing the O.A. 10. Consequently and in view of the above, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for disposal afresh on merits. 11. It is needless to say that we did not express any view on merits of the case. 12. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 30th January, 2008. Ak