High Court · 2025
Case Details
Petitioner :- Union Of India , Thru. General Manager, North Eastern Railway , Gorakhpur And Others Respondent :- Central Administrative Tribunal Lucknow Bench Lucknow And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr. Ravi Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Vijay Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. Heard. By means of this petition, the petitioner i.e. the Union of India, has challenged the judgment and order dated 12.07.2023 passed in Original Application No. 332/00061/2020 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow by which the claim of the opposite party no. 2 herein for compassionate appointment on Group C post with all consequential benefits has been allowed. The facts of the case in brief are that the father of the petitioner died in harness, just as the father of Ashok Kumar Pathak died in harness. Both, the opposite party no. 2 and one Ashok Kumar Pathak, were found fit for compassionate appointment on Group D post and were accordingly offered the appointment. In the medical examination, both of them were found fit for clerical post, as accepted by the petitioners' Counsel. When the matter went up to the General Manager for approval, the General Manager approved the upgradation of appointment of Ashok Kumar Pathak to Group C post, but declined such upgradation in the case of opposite party no. 2 herein. Being aggrieved, the opposite party no. 2, as claimed, filed an application on 01.03.2007, claiming similar benefit as Ashok Kumar Pathak. However, vide order dated 22.11.2007, receipt of which has not been denied by the opposite party no. 2, he was informed that the General Manager has denied his claim / proposal. This order dated 22.11.2007 was never challenged. It appears that on 19.12.2016, some complaint was made by the brother of the opposite party no. 2 to the Prime Minister's Office whereupon the same was communicated to the concerned Department. Accordingly, vide order dated 26.12.2016, the brother of opposite party no. 2 was informed that his matter is under 2 WRIA No. 8968 of 2023 reconsideration at the Headquarters level. As, no further communication was made to the opposite party no. 2, therefore, he filed an O.A. bearing no. 332/00382/2019 which was decided on 26.07.2019 directing the concerned opposite party to decide the pending representation of the applicant dated 30.03.2017 and 27.04.2017 by passing a detailed and reasoned order under intimation to the applicant within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Even, in this O.A., the communication dated 22.11.2007 referred hereinabove does not appear to have been challenged, nor was the decision of the General Manager referred therein challenged, as there is no mention of it in the judgment. It appears that the said O.A. was filed only on the strength of the communication dated 26.12.2016 based on their representation submitted to the Prime Minister's Office on 19.12.2016, which was not statutory and in any case, it was highly belated, as, all along, in the interregnum, the opposite party no. 2 had accepted his appointment on Group D post in 2007 itself, and in fact, as is mentioned in Paragraph 32 of the writ petition, he had already been granted the financial upgradation under the MACP scheme of the next higher post in May, 2018. Be that as it may, in deference to the order dated 26.07.2019, the petitioners took a decision on 03.12.2019, copy of which is on record, mentioning therein that on 08.03.2007 the opposite party no. 2 herein had joined on the Class IV post and had been working therein, and had also been granted the MACP in May, 2018, and had preferred his representation only on 30.03.2017 after having accepted the Group D post for more than 12 years, therefore, the claim was not found to be tenable. It is this order which was put to challenge before the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not notice the fact that the communication of disapproval of the opposite party no. 2 for compassionate appointment on Group C post by the General Manager vide order dated 22.11.2007 was never put to challenge by the opposite party no. 2. For the first time, he submitted a representation on 30.03.2017, prior to it, the representation dated 19.12.2016 was submitted by his brother and not him, that too, to the Prime Minister's Office. As regards, the representation dated 01.03.2007, the communication dated 22.11.2007 is subsequent to it, therefore, the opposite party no. 2 could not say that the said representation was still pending. Having lost sight of relevant aspects of the matter, more than 16 years after the compassionate appointment of opposite party no. 2 on Group D post, the Tribunal has interfered in the matter by quashing the orders dated 03.12.2019 and 09.12.2019 with a direction that the opposite party no. 2 applicant be upgraded to Group C post. The claim itself was 3 WRIA No. 8968 of 2023 highly belated, irrespective of the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 26.07.2019. In fact, it appears that in the said O.A., the communication dated 22.11.2007 was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal, as, it does not find mention in its order. After so many years, to raise such a claim is unacceptable. The opposite party no. 2 should have approached the Tribunal or the Court, as the case may be, immediately after receipt of the communication dated 22.11.2007 and should not have waited for more than almost 10 years in preferring the first representation seeking upgradation. It is trite that a claim which is barred by limitation or delay may not kill the right, but it certainly kills the remedy. We, therefore, find that the Tribunal has erred in allowing the claim petition at a belated stage. We, accordingly, quash the impugned judgment. Consequently, the O.A. No. 332/00061/2020 stands dismissed. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 Lokesh Kumar [Manjive Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] LOKESH KUMAR LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench
Petitioner :- Union Of India , Thru. General Manager, North Eastern Railway , Gorakhpur And Others Respondent :- Central Administrative Tribunal Lucknow Bench Lucknow And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr. Ravi Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Vijay Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. Heard. By means of this petition, the petitioner i.e. the Union of India, has challenged the judgment and order dated 12.07.2023 passed in Original Application No. 332/00061/2020 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow by which the claim of the opposite party no. 2 herein for compassionate appointment on Group C post with all consequential benefits has been allowed. The facts of the case in brief are that the father of the petitioner died in harness, just as the father of Ashok Kumar Pathak died in harness. Both, the opposite party no. 2 and one Ashok Kumar Pathak, were found fit for compassionate appointment on Group D post and were accordingly offered the appointment. In the medical examination, both of them were found fit for clerical post, as accepted by the petitioners' Counsel. When the matter went up to the General Manager for approval, the General Manager approved the upgradation of appointment of Ashok Kumar Pathak to Group C post, but declined such upgradation in the case of opposite party no. 2 herein. Being aggrieved, the opposite party no. 2, as claimed, filed an application on 01.03.2007, claiming similar benefit as Ashok Kumar Pathak. However, vide order dated 22.11.2007, receipt of which has not been denied by the opposite party no. 2, he was informed that the General Manager has denied his claim / proposal. This order dated 22.11.2007 was never challenged. It appears that on 19.12.2016, some complaint was made by the brother of the opposite party no. 2 to the Prime Minister's Office whereupon the same was communicated to the concerned Department. Accordingly, vide order dated 26.12.2016, the brother of opposite party no. 2 was informed that his matter is under 2 WRIA No. 8968 of 2023 reconsideration at the Headquarters level. As, no further communication was made to the opposite party no. 2, therefore, he filed an O.A. bearing no. 332/00382/2019 which was decided on 26.07.2019 directing the concerned opposite party to decide the pending representation of the applicant dated 30.03.2017 and 27.04.2017 by passing a detailed and reasoned order under intimation to the applicant within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Even, in this O.A., the communication dated 22.11.2007 referred hereinabove does not appear to have been challenged, nor was the decision of the General Manager referred therein challenged, as there is no mention of it in the judgment. It appears that the said O.A. was filed only on the strength of the communication dated 26.12.2016 based on their representation submitted to the Prime Minister's Office on 19.12.2016, which was not statutory and in any case, it was highly belated, as, all along, in the interregnum, the opposite party no. 2 had accepted his appointment on Group D post in 2007 itself, and in fact, as is mentioned in Paragraph 32 of the writ petition, he had already been granted the financial upgradation under the MACP scheme of the next higher post in May, 2018. Be that as it may, in deference to the order dated 26.07.2019, the petitioners took a decision on 03.12.2019, copy of which is on record, mentioning therein that on 08.03.2007 the opposite party no. 2 herein had joined on the Class IV post and had been working therein, and had also been granted the MACP in May, 2018, and had preferred his representation only on 30.03.2017 after having accepted the Group D post for more than 12 years, therefore, the claim was not found to be tenable. It is this order which was put to challenge before the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not notice the fact that the communication of disapproval of the opposite party no. 2 for compassionate appointment on Group C post by the General Manager vide order dated 22.11.2007 was never put to challenge by the opposite party no. 2. For the first time, he submitted a representation on 30.03.2017, prior to it, the representation dated 19.12.2016 was submitted by his brother and not him, that too, to the Prime Minister's Office. As regards, the representation dated 01.03.2007, the communication dated 22.11.2007 is subsequent to it, therefore, the opposite party no. 2 could not say that the said representation was still pending. Having lost sight of relevant aspects of the matter, more than 16 years after the compassionate appointment of opposite party no. 2 on Group D post, the Tribunal has interfered in the matter by quashing the orders dated 03.12.2019 and 09.12.2019 with a direction that the opposite party no. 2 applicant be upgraded to Group C post. The claim itself was 3 WRIA No. 8968 of 2023 highly belated, irrespective of the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 26.07.2019. In fact, it appears that in the said O.A., the communication dated 22.11.2007 was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal, as, it does not find mention in its order. After so many years, to raise such a claim is unacceptable. The opposite party no. 2 should have approached the Tribunal or the Court, as the case may be, immediately after receipt of the communication dated 22.11.2007 and should not have waited for more than almost 10 years in preferring the first representation seeking upgradation. It is trite that a claim which is barred by limitation or delay may not kill the right, but it certainly kills the remedy. We, therefore, find that the Tribunal has erred in allowing the claim petition at a belated stage. We, accordingly, quash the impugned judgment. Consequently, the O.A. No. 332/00061/2020 stands dismissed. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 Lokesh Kumar [Manjive Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] LOKESH KUMAR LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench