IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2028 of 2008 CHANDAN KUMAR ROY @ CHANDAN ROY Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Satyavrat Varma,Advocate For the respondents : Mr.Sarvedeo Singh, Central Government Advocate -------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------ Dated, the 21st August, 2008 Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the petitioner’s age at the time of his father’s death was about 29 years. He made an application for appointment on compassionate ground in the year 1994 which is said to have been rejected on 15th April, 1999. The petitioner seems to have gone in slumber and approached the Tribunal in 2005 challenging the order dated 15th April, 1999. It is in this backdrop the Tribunal considered the matter thus: “I have carefully considered the arguments of both sides. This O.A. seems to be time barred and no solid reason has been advanced in M.A.640 of 2005 which is for condonation of delay. It is also clear that this case is 13 years old and after such a long period it is not proper to consider a case for compassionate appointment specially in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh Nagpal vs. U.O.I. & Ors. I can understand that the impugned order at Annexure-B is cryptic and it could be very unsatisfactory because it does not give any reason for rejection but this issue could have been heard only if the O.A had come before me in the year 2000 or even earlier. Now it is too late to look into - 2 - those issues. In view of these observations, this O.A is dismissed and the M.A.640 of 2005 is also dismissed. No costs.” 2. The counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors, reported in 2007(4) PLJR (SC) 151. 3. We are afraid, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar cannot be applied to the fact-situation noticed above. 4. Dismissal of original application by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. 5. Writ petition is dismissed in limine. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. sunil