2025:HHC:20843-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 7761 of 2014 Decided on: 01.07.2025 __________________________________________________________ Yog Raj ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and Others. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the petitioner: Mr. Naveen Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajinder Thakur, Central Government Standing Counsel. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] The present writ petition is directed against the judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh in O.A. No.375/HP/2013, decided on 25.04.2014, whereby the original application of the petitioner was dismissed. The prayer made in the said application, as such, was for grant of compassionate appointment on account of death of the father of the petitioner. 2. The reason which led the Tribunal to dismiss the same was that the claim had been rejected by the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:20843-DB - 2 - authority on 25.10.2000 and the petitioner had only filed O.A. in the year 2013, after delay of more than 12 years while the delay was 25 years from the date when his father had unfortunately expired on 24.05.1988. Resultantly, claim not having been raised within prescribed period and there was no explanation given that the same could not be entertained. 3. The reliance was placed upon by the Tribunal the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Versus A.Duairaj (J.T. 2011 (3) S.C. Page 254 in the context of jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the issue of delay and laches. The Tribunal further found that the purpose of the scheme for compassionate appointment in the year 1988 framed by the Government as was such regarding the dependency of the person and was not a regular source of recruitment and the same was to get over certain financial crises. 4. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment in Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 38, Mumtaz Yunus Mulani Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors, 2008 (2) S.C.T., 669, State of Chhatisgarh & Ors Vs. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar decided on 05.05.2010, 2025:HHC:20843-DB - 3 - reported as 2010 (1) Recent Service Judgment and MGB Gramin Bank Versus Chakrawarti Singh 2013 (6) SLR 227 to this extent. 5. Counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was minor and he was studying in third standard when his father had expired, therefore, it is only on attaining the age of majority he had approached the authority. There is no dispute with the above said factual matrix, but it is the own case of the writ petitioner that he had attained the age of majority in September, 1996 and apparently, his case was rejected on 25.10.2000. Regarding this aspect there is no dispute that the Tribunal was only approached in the year 2013, and therefore, the Tribunal has rejected the claim. The purpose of the compassionate appointment, as noticed in the judgment in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana, JT 1994 (3) SC 525, is to provide immediate relief to the family whose earning hand has been taken away. 6. In such circumstances, it has been noticed that it is not regular source of appointment and therefore, the benefit has to accrue at the earliest. As 2025:HHC:20843-DB - 4 - noticed though the petitioner was a minor but even then having attained the age of majority in 1996 he got a rejection 4 years later on 25.10.2000, and he slept over his rights to raise a challenge to the rejection order on merits. It is thus apparent that for the 12-13 years the need, as such for Government employment was not felt. 7. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity since the Tribunal itself is also further restricted for the period of limitation prescribed under the Act itself, to which reference has been made by the Tribunal. In such circumstances, the order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and no indulgence can be shown to entertain the writ petition against the same. Resultantly, the present writ petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge July 01, 2025 [himani/Shivender]