1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16645/2010 (Ram Singh Versus Union of India & Others) Date of Order :: 21st December, 2010 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Vinod Goyal, counsel for the petitioner BY THE COURT: Heard on the question of admission. 2. The petitioner had filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal for consideration of his case for compassionate appointment. It was submitted that father of the applicant was in service of the Railways, who was retired forcibly from the service without giving any alternative post. The retirement was ordered w.e.f. 31st March, 1989. The father of the applicant died on 30th January, 2007. Thereafter, the original application had been preferred before the Tribunal. Initially the Tribunal directed a representation to be decided in Original Application No. 2 217/2009. Thereafter, order was passed on 3rd September, 2009 rejecting the representation of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, again an Original Application was filed. This has been dismissed by the impugned order. Consequently, this writ petition has been preferred. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Original Application could not have been dismissed on the ground of delay. There was a direction to decide the representation. After the death of the employee, it had been rejected on 3rd September, 2009. Hence, it could not be said that the Original Application preferred before the Tribunal was barred by limitation on facts, and alternative employment ought to have been offered to the father of the applicant. It was a fit case to offer compassionate appointment. 5. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, we are of the opinion that no case for interference in the impugned order dated 4th February, 2010 is made out, in the circumstances of 3 the case. In the instant case, the father of the applicant was not forcibly retired. He sought voluntary retirement without assigning any cause and he was retired from the service w.e.f. 31st March, 1989. The deceased employee did not assail this order in his lifetime. He was alive for 18 years. After his death in January, 2007, it was not open to the applicant to seek compassionate appointment in view of the fact that his father had obtained voluntary retirement from service. The facility of compassionate appointment to the wards of such employees is not available. The relief prayed for that father of the applicant ought to have been offered alternative employment due to lowering down of medical category, could not have been entertained after 20 years, as the father of the applicant did not choose to assail the voluntary retirement order. The compassionate appointment could not have been offered merely on the ground that the Tribunal had directed to decide the representation previously on the Original Application. No right accrues to 4 the petitioner to assail the voluntary retirement order passed in the year 1989. The prayer of compassionate appointment is based on the premise that father of the applicant had been wrongly categorized “retired voluntarily” and he has not been offered alternative employment. In the circumstances, the Tribunal is right in dismissing the original application on the ground of delay. Even otherwise on merits, as the father of the petitioner had retired voluntarily in the year 1989, which was not challenged and this has attained finality, compassionate appointment could not have been offered to the applicant. Thus, his prayer has been rightly rejected. 6. The writ petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. (ARUN MISHRA).C.J. DK/-