Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:54348-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20753 of 2024 Petitioner :- Gaurav Kumar Respondent :- Union of India and 3 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar, Vijay Pal Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I., Ved Mani Tiwari Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 18.10.2024 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad whereby the Misc. Application filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing the Original Application ('OA') has been dismissed and consequently, the OA has also been dismissed. 2. The OA was filed in the year 2020 seeking a direction to the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground in place of his father, who died in harness on 07.08.2008. In the application seeking condonation of delay, it was indicated that after the death of his father, the petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate ground, however, the respondent-authority was sitting over the claim and no action has been taken in this regard and on account of the unemployment, petitioner could not approach the Tribunal and, therefore, the delay in filing the OA may be condoned. 3. Response to the application was filed with the submissions that no cogent reasons have been indicated in the application seeking condonation of delay and that making of successive representations would not give rise to a fresh cause of action. 4. Rejoinder was filed reiterating the submissions made in this regard. 5. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that after the father of the petitioner died in harness on 07.08.2008, the petitioner made representations qua grant of compassionate appointment and approached Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal by filing OA No. 245 of 2010, which was decided on 25.02.20211 requiring the respondents to decide petitioner's eligibility and entitlement within a period of three months. The petitioner did not pursue the matter further and after a delay of 12 years, the OA was filed and consequently, finding no plausible reason for condoning the delay, dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay and, consequently, dismissed the OA as well. 6. When the writ petition came up before this Court, after going through the record, when it was noticed by this Court that the case of the petitioner was considered till the year 2020 wherein he was not having sufficient marks to get the appointment on compassionate basis, the respondents were required to place on record the material to indicate as to whether the case of the petitioner has been considered post 31.08.2020. 7. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents, inter alia, indicating that the case of the petitioner has continuously been considered for compassionate appointment right from Board No. 08 (held in the year 2010) to Board No. 16 (held in the year 2021) wherein total 8 chances/opportunities have been given to the petitioner, but he did not came up in the merit list due to limited vacancies and being low in merit in comparison to the candidates, who were accorded appointment on compassionate basis. 8. It is then indicated that the petitioner was not considered in subsequent Boards, as prior to Board No. 17, a letter dated 19.03.2022 was sent to the mother of the petitioner to submit a fresh application for compassionate appointment with updated details, which were required for consideration of name of the applicant in the upcoming Board (Board No. 17), however, the required documents were not submitted by the petitioner. 9. Another communication dated 26.04.2022 was sent to the mother of the petitioner for making a fresh application with latest details for the next Board, but the same were also not supplied. Submissions have been made that number of letters were sent to the petitioner as well as his mother to provide required mandatory documents for processing the case, which were not received and a communication was received from mother of the petitioner dated 14.02.2023 indicating that as the matter was pending before the Tribunal, she would follow the decision of the Tribunal and, therefore, in the subsequent Boards, for lack of the updated details, the case of the petitioner has not been considered. 10. 10. From the material available on record, it is apparent that though the respondents have repeatedly considered the case of the petitioner and the petitioner, on account of limited vacancies and being low in merit, did not succeed, none of the determinations made by the various Boards have been questioned and now when the updated details are being sought, the same have been refused by the petitioner/mother of the petitioner and, therefore, the action of the respondents cannot be faulted. 11. In view of the above fact situation, the petition seeking to question the order passed by the Tribunal de-hors the events, as noticed, based on the counter affidavit, cannot be maintained. 12. There is no substance in the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 P.Sri. (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- PUNEET SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad