Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Santosh Kumar v. U.O.I. Thru' Secry., Mini. Of Defence. N. Delhi And Others - WRIT - A No. 5849 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 2281 (12 February 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad dated 6.1.2006 by which the claim of the petitioner for compassionate employment has been rejected on the ground that there were limited number of vacancies to be filled up by offering the appointment on compassionate ground. The cases of other claimants were also considered along with the petitioners and their case was more deserving than the petitioner and the respondents-authorities have also considered the case of the petitioner and the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no fault in the order passed by the respondents-authorities in rejecting the claim for compassionate employment.

We do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment and order of the Tribunal. Even otherwise, we are of the considered opinion that as the claim of the petitioner stood rejected by the respondents-authorities in July, 1998 and the order had been communicated to the petitioner, there was no occasion for the petitioner to approach the Tribunal after five years by filing the claim petition in 2003. Explanation furnished by the petitioner that a second representation was filed is not an explanation for delay in view of the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Rabindra Nath Bose and others Vs. Union of India and others AIR 1970 SC 470 wherein it has been held that once a claim is rejected on merit, there cannot be another representation and even if such a second representation is filed, the same would not furnish an explanation for inordinate delay. Thus, we are of the view that the Tribunal ought not to have entertained the claim petition in view of the provisions of Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act. Even otherwise, the judgment and order dated 6.1.2006 has been challenged after the expiry of one year and no explanation has been furnished for such an ordinate delay.

In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal. The writ petition is totally misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Dt/- 12.2.2007



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.