Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
V Nagamma vs M/O Railways on 11 September, 2017
ad IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
HYDERABAD
O.A. No.020/01239/2015
Date of CAV:21.08.2017. Date of Order: //{ .09 2017.
Between :
4. VNagamma, w/o V.Lakshmanna, aged 55 yrs,
rio H.No.15-906, Bhagat Singh Nagar,
Taluka Office backside, Tadipatri,
Anantapur District-515 411.
2.\V.Ram Prasad, s/o aged 26 yrs,
ro H.No.15-906, Bhagat Singh Nagar,
Taluka Office backside, Tadipatri, .
Anantapur District-515 411. ; ... Applicants
And
4. Union of India, .rep., by the Chairman,
M/o Railways, Railway Board,
Rail Bhavan, New Delhi.
2 The General Manager, South Central Railway,
Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.
3. The Chief Personnel Officer, South Central Railway,
Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.
4. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
South Central Railway, Guntakal Division,
Guntakal. ... Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant ... Mr.K.R.K.V.Prasad
Counsel for the Respondents ... Mr.M.Brahma Reddy, SC for Riys rep., by
Mr.Bheem Singh
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.MINNIE MATHEW, MEMBER (ADMN.)
at
2
ORDER
{ As per Hon'ble Mrs.Minnie Mathew, Member (Admn.) } The first and the second applicants are the wife and son respectively of the late Sri V.Lakshmanna, who was in the service of the respondent-Railways prior to his voluntary retirement.
2. The brief facts of the case, according to the applicant, are that while working as Pointsman-A at Tadipatri in Guntakal Division of the South Central Railway, Sri V.Lakshmanna was found medically unfit to continue AYE-2 medical classification on 3.9.2003. He was, however, found fit in AYE-3 and below for six months. On account of the medical decategorization, he was not allowed to perform the duties of Pointsman-A and was kept on supernumerary post. Thereafter, on 27.07.2006 he was again declared as medically unfit permanently in AYE-3 medical classification and was found fit in CEE-1 on account of his defective vision. in view of the existing provisions of the medical decategorization scheme, which permits employment in favour of the dependent wards, Sri V.Lakshmanna had submitted an application on 10.11.2006 to the 4" respondent opting for voluntary. retirement with a request to provide employment to his son and the 2"° applicant herein. It is submitted that he had made eight representations between 31.12.2006 and 29.12.2012 for compassionate appointment in favour of the 2" applicant in consequence of his voluntary retirement on medical grounds. In the meantime, the Railway employee died. After his demise, the first applicant had continued to pursue the appointment of her son and the 2™ applicant herein on compassionate grounds by submitting representations. However, the respondents have failed to issue any favourable orders.
3. It is submitted by the applicants that on oral enquiries, it was learnt that the respondents did not consider the 2™ applicant for compassionate appointment on Hy a 3 s u the ground that the deceased Railway employee did not have left over service jof | 7 < .
years as on the date of his medical decategorization. The applicant contends that this.
view is wrong as the intial date of medical decategorization was 03.09.2003 and at that point of time he had 7 years left over service. It is pointed out that after the initial medical decategorization, the deceased Railway employee was not allowed to perform the duties of Pointsman 'A'. As the deceased Railway employee's vision had not improved, the respondents ought to have taken action to provide alternative appointment in September 2003 itself. Instead he was allowed to continue in service till his vision was totally impaired. Further, inspite of mentioning very clearly in the request for voluntary retirement for providing appointment on compassionate grounds in favour of his son, the issue has been kept pending and the deceased employee's family has been deprived of thelr legitimate benefit of getting compassionate appointment even though such appointment is legally enforceabie right in terms of the scheme of medical decategorization of the Railway Board. The appicants also contend that serious discrimination has taken place in view of the fact that several similarly situated employees have been given differential treatment by providing alternative employment in favour of their wards.
4. It is the case of the applicants that the Railway Board had issued instructions vide RBE No.78 of 2006 cirulated as Serial Circular No.92 of 2006 permitting employees to retire voluntarily on their being declared medically decategorized by extending the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground to their wards. Further, the protection available under Section 47 of the Disability Act read with the policy of the Railway Board envisages that partially disabled employees can either choose to"
continue in service or take voluntary retirement by seeking appointment of their wards Hh seven 4 ee eee Tose on compassionate grounds. Further, even though there is discretion available to General Manager in the matter of providing compassionate appointment to the wards, such discretion shall be exercised before the acceptance of voluntary retirement so that the employee has an option to continue in service till his retirement under the statutory protection available to him.
5. The applicants are thus aggrieved by the action of the respondents in action allowing the employee to retire voluntarily and thereafter rejecting the compassionate appointment in favour of the ward. The applicants submit that the action of the respondents in allowing the late Sri V.Lakshmanna to retire voluntarily after he was declared unfit and subsequently not processing the case of the 2™ applicant is unjust, illegal, discriminatory and arbitrary and against the law decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhagwan Das v. Punjab State Electricity Board. They also point out that voluntary retirement was accepted in terms of the policy laid down in Serial Circular No.92/2006, compassionate appointment in favour of the 2" applicant should have been provided as the matter is squarely covered under the provisions of the Disability Act.
6. In their reply statement, the respondents have submitted that consequent on the partial medical decategerization of the late Sri V.Lakshmanna on 5.9.2003, he was kept on superanumerary post after being screened by the constituted committee. As he was found suitable for the post of Gateman, he was posted as such under Station Superintendent, Jutur. While working as Gateman, the Railway employee was directed for Special Medical examination. After the examination, he was found unfit in AYE-3 and Bee-1 and fit in Cey-1 due to vision problems, vide Medical the late Sri V.Lakshmanna sought voluntary retirement with effect from 31.12.2006, which was accepted by the competent authority on 31.12.2006. The respondents submit that the late Sri V.Lakshmanna had applied for appointment to his son on 31.8.2009.
7. The respondents have relied on the Serial Circular No.92/2006 which provides for compassionate appointment to the wife/wards/dependants of partially medically de- categorised staff who seek voluntary retirement. They pointed out that the Circular envisages that such appointments are only to be given in case of employees who are declared partially decategorized at a time when they have at least 5 years or more of left over service. As the ex-employee was declared medically decategorized on 27.7.2006 and was due for superanfnuation on 30.6.2010, his left over service was only 3 years, 11. months and 3 days. Hence, his request for appointment to his ward was not considered and the same was communicated to him on 9.9.2009. It is also submitted that the Persons with Diabilities (Equal Oppotunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1998 inter alia lays down that "in cases where an employee has been medically invalidated/decategorised and where the Administration cannot find a suitable alternative post for such an employee, he may be kept on a supernumerary post in the grade in which he was working on regular basis, till such time a suitable post is indentified or till his retirement, which ever is earlier. As these instructions provided for continuation in service of a medically invalidated/decategorized employee, there would no occasion for an employee to seek retirement from service on medical ground. When an empoyee becomes medicaly unfit for the post being held but is fit to perform the duties of an alternative suitable ae Superintendent/Railway Hospital/Guntakal letter dated 27.7.2006. Consequent on this, we post in a lower medical category, the request for appointment on compassionate ground to an eligible ward will not be admissible even if the employee chooses to retire voluntarily on being declared medically decategorized. Such employees shall either be continued in a supernumerary post or allowed to retire voluntarily, if he so desires, but without extending the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds to a ward. In any case, as the deceased Railway employee had worked as Gateman/Juturu, after his medical invalidation in the year 2003, the said date cannot be counted for finalizing the left over service. As per the instructions in force, he was given alternative employment and there was no forceable continuation of service. Further, the deceased Railway employee has chosen to take voluntary retirement and has not been compelled in this regard.
8. The respondents further point out that even if the Ex.employee has sought voluntary retirement in the year 2003, there was no provision for appointment of his ward on compassionate grounds at that point of time as there was no provision for compassionate appointment of wards between 18.01.2000 to 14.06.2006. In these circumstances, he would have accepted the alternative post as Gateman on his decategorization as Pointsman in the year 2003. As per the Railway Board's letter dated 14.6.2006, compassionate appointment in favour of wards was permitted subject to the condition that the left over service of the ex.employee from the date of medical decategorization to the date of superannuation is five years or more. In the instant case, as the deceased employee has less than 5 years, compassionate appointment to his ward was not granted.
9. The respondents have relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Harayana & Others (1995 (I) LLJ 798), wherein the Hon'bie Supreme Court has held that the whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. Thus, the compassionate ground appointment is to provide immediate relief to the employee's family and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
10. The 2™ applicant has filed a rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the original application. Further, he has denied receipt of the rejection letter dated 09.09.2009 and submits that such letter was not served on him at that relevant point of time. Further, the left over service of his late father has to be seen from the date of the initial medical decategorization in 2003 at which point of time his father had more than 7 years left over service. He also points out that the Board's instructions dated 14.06.2006 has a mention that the cases of medically decategorized employees after issuing Board's letter dated 18.01.2000 will have to be covered by the instructions issued on 14.06.2006. In view of this, the case of his father has to be considered. He also contends that the Station Superintendent did not allow his father to perform the duties of Gateman, which would amount to continuation on a supernumerary post from 2003 onwards till his retirement.
11. The 2™ applicant has also filed certain extracts of muster sheets from August 2006 to December 2006, which according to him show his father's designation as Pointsman.
12. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.
13. The learned counsel for the Applicant relied on the judgments in Bhagwan Das v. Punjab State Electricity Board (AIR 2008 Supreme Court 990), | Food Corporation of India v. Ramkesh Yadav (2008 (1) ALJ 7), Bhavani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of india (2011 (4) SCC 209), Kunal Singh v. Union of india (2003 (4) SCC 524), in support of his pleadings. He also placed reliance on the orders of this Tribunal in O.A.No.972/2010, dated 20.9.2011 and the orders of the Calcutta Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.972/2002.
14: From the material on record, it is seen that the applicant's late father was medically decategorized to hold the post of Pointsman-i/TV in view of his unfitness in the Aye-1 medical category. As he was found fit in Aye-3 and below with glasses for six months and was found suitable for the post of Gateman in Traffic Department, he was posted as such in the same pay and grade at Jutur on 24.6.2004. Thus, at the time of his medical decategorization on 05.09.2003, he was found fit in a lower medical category and was not totally incapacitated. Serial Circular No.21/2000, dated oo 11.2.2000, which held the field at the time when he was found medically unfit in Aye-2 category reads as follows:
"The matter has bene reviewed pursuant fo a demand raised by the staff side in the DC/JCM and it has now been decided that in cases where an employee is totally incapacitated and is not in a position to continue in any post because of his medical condition, he may be allowed to opt for retirement. In such cases request for appointment on compassionate ground to an eligible ward may be considered.
in the cases of medical decategorisation i.e., those cases in which an employee becomes medically unfit for the psot held at present but is fit to perform the duties of an alternative suitable post in lower medical category, the request for appointment on compassionate ground to an eligible ward will not be admissible, even if the employee chooses to retire voluntarily on his being declaed medically decategorised. Such an employee may then either be continued in a supernumerary post or allowed fo retire voluntarily if he so desires but without extending the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds to a ward."
In view of the fact that the applicant's father was not totally incapacitated, he would not have been eligible to seek compassionate appointment in favour of his son. It is a well settled position of law that compassionate appointment can be made only in accordance with the scheme. Further, he continued in alternative employment under the Railways as Gateman without any fall in his emoluments. By virtue of the alternative posting given to him on 24.06.2004, the applicant's father was provided with the necessary protection envisaged in the Persons with Disabilities Act. | find no merit in the applicant's contentions that the rights to which his father was entitled has been violated by the respondents.
1§. The applicant has contended that the acceptance of his father's Sluntary retirement without regard to the "twin condition" of providing compassionate appointment to him is in contravention of the statutory protection available to the disabled employee and against the law decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In view of the alternative employment with full protection of his pay and allowances as can be seen from the orders passed by the respondents on 24.6.2004, it is held that there has been no infringment of any of the applicant's father rights as a disabled employee. Further, when he attained the age of 55 years he was directed for special medical examination and was found fit in Cye-1 medical category on 27.7.2006. Even though he was found fit in a lower medical category, the respondents have not found him unfit for appointment in Railway service. It is the applicant's father who himself sought voluntary retirement with effect from 31.12.2006, which was approved by the competent authority on 22.12.2006. Admittedly, the respondents had revised their instructions on the appointment on compassionate grounds of wards of medically decategorized staff, vide their Serial Circular No.92/2006, dated 22.06.2006. In terms of the revised instructions, which was in force at the time of the applicant's father's request for compassionate employment, the authority had decided that compassionate ground appointment for the wife/wards/dependants of partially medically decategorized staff, who seek voluntary retirement may be given subject to the following conditions:
"a. The appointment will be given only in the eligible Group ''D' categories. 'Eligible' would mean that in case Group 'D' recruitment is banned for any particular category, the same would also apply for the compassionate ground appointments.
b. Such an appointment should only be given in case of employees who are declared partially decategorised at a fime when they have at least 5 years or more service left.
od 11 c. CMD of the Railways should keep a watch over the trend of decategorisation so that the present figure do not get inflated. CMD should also get 10% partially decategorised cases re- examined by another medical Board not belonging to Divisional Hospital which initially declared them unfit."
16. As per clause (b} above, employees declared partially decategorized and who have at least 5 years or more service woud be eligible for getting compassionate appointment in favour of their wards. Admittedly, in 2006, the applicant's father did not have 5 years left over service. Therefore, in terms of the instructions, which governed the field at the time of the 2™ medical decategorization, he would not be eligible for seeking compassionate appointment in favour of his ward.
17. Countering this point, the applicant has contended that his father's medical decategorization should be considered with effect from 2003 at which point of time he had 7 years of service. In 2003, the applicant's father was found fit in a lower medical category and also offered alternative employment, which has been accepted by him. Having accepted the alternate employment without any demur, there can be no justification for treating the applicant's father's medical decategorization as 5.9.2003. Even assuming that there is a so called "twin condition" of providing compassionate appointment along with acceptance of voluntary retirement, such condition would be subject to the provisions laid down in the scheme itself. The scheme for providing compassionate appointment to the wards of partially decategorised employees lays down that such appointment shail be given only to employees with at least five years left over service. The Hon'ble Apex Court has consistently held that compassionate appointment cannot be made de hors the scheme formulated for this purpose. Since the deceased Railway employee did not have the required 5 years of service at the time of his voluntary retirement, the action of the respondents in not considering his prayer for compassionate appointment is in accordance with the extant scheme.
12f 4%. The applicants have taken the ground that the respondents should have explained to the late father of the 2™ applicant that compassionate appointment in favour of his son would not be acceptable and that allowing him to take voluntary retirement without providing compassionate appointment has resulted in serious financial loss and that this action is unjust as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhagwan Das v. Punjab State Electricity Board (AIR 2008 Supreme Court 990).
44. Ona perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it is seen that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had allowed the appeal and held as illegal the action of the Punjab State Electricity Board in terminating the service of the disabled employee. They also held that in view of the provisions of Section 47 of the Act, the employee would be deemed to be in service and he would be entitled to all service benefits including annual increments an promotions etc., till the date of his retirement and that he shall be continued in service till his date of superannuation according to the service records. The relevant extracts of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced hereunder:
"12. From the materials brought before the court by none other than the respondent-Board it is manifest that notwithstanding the clear and definite legislative mandate some Officers of the Board took the view that it was not right to continue a blind, useless man on the Board's rolls and to pay him monthly salary in return of no service. They accordingly persuaded each other that the appellant had himself asked for retirement from service and, therefore, he was not entitled to the protection of the Act. The only material on the basis of which the Officers of the Board took the stand that the appellant had himself made a request for retirement on medical grounds was his letter dated July 17, 1996. The letter was written when a charge sheet was issued to him and in the letter he was trying to explain his absence from duty. In this letter, x he requested to be retired but at the same time asked that his wife should be given a suitabe job in his place. In our view, it is impossible to read that letter as a voluntary offer for retirement.
13. Appellant No.1 was a Class IV employee, a Lineman. He completely lost his vision. He was not aware of any protection that the law afforded him and apparently believed that the blindness would cause him to lose his job, the source of livelihood of his family. The enormous mental pressure under which he would have been at that time is not difficult to imagine. In those circumstances, it was the duty of the Superior Officers to explain to him the correct legal position and to tell him about his legal rights. Instead of doing that they threw him out of service by picking up a sentence from his letter, completely out of context. The action of the concerned Officers of the Board, to our mind, was deprecatable.
14. We understand that the concerned Officers were acting in what they believed to be the best interests of the Board. Stilf under the old mind-set it would appear to them just not right that the Board should spend good money on someone who was no longer of any use. But they were quite wrong, seen from any angle. From the narrow point of view the officers were duty-bound to follow the faw and it was not open to them to allow their bias to defeat the lawful nights of the disabled employee. From the larger point of view the officers failed to realise that the disabled too are equal citizens of the country and have as much share in its resources as any other citizen. The denial of their rights would not only be unjust and unfair to them and their families but would create larger and graver problems for the society at large. What the law permits fo them is no charity or largess but their right as equal citizens of the country."
20- The instant case is distinguishable on facts inasmuch as the deceased Railway employee was never declared medically unfit for all purposes. !n fact, in Annexure.A-2 category. Thus, he was fully aware that he was fit to continue in Railway service, albeit, under a lower medical category. There is nothing on record in the present case to show that the respondents have taken the view that he was not fit to continue in Railway service. The deceased Railway employee was also not under threat of any disciplinary action or any other compulsion for submitting his voluntary retirement. Thus, the circumstances of Bhagwandas and the deceased Railway employee are different and the judgment is of no help to the applicants.
21. Itis also the contention of the applicants that Sri V.Lakshmanna's application for voluntary retirement was conditional and contingent on providing employment on compassionate ground to his son. The language used in AnnexureA-2 letter submitted by the late employee does not give any indication that his voluntary retirement should be accepted only if compassionate appointment is provided to his ward. From the scheme in force in the Railways, it is evident that only those employees who have left over service of more than 5 years would be eligible for compassionate appointment in favour of thier wards. Thus, while the scheme provides that even partially decategorized employees are eligible to seek compassionate appointment, certain conditions as set forth in Para 15 supra would have to be satisfied. In other words, the right to compassionate appointment would arise only when the stipulated conditions are fulfilled and not otherwise. In the Food Corporation of India's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had upheld the direction for grant of employment only because of the acceptance of the inter-linked conditional offer. Further, it has also been stated that "Where the offer to voluntarily retire and request for compassionate appointment are not inter-linked or conditional, FCl would be 15 justified in considering and deciding each request independently, even if both requests are made in the same letter or application." There is nothing to suggest that the request of the deceased Railway employee was a conditional request for voluntary retirement. Further, he failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria for seeking compassionate appointment. Hence, the judgment relied upon by the applicant has no application to his case.
92. In Bhawani Prasad Sonkar's case, the main grievance of the applicant was that the respondents had retired him without offering him a suitable alternative job despite the fact that he was found medically fit in Bee-1 category. Hence, it was argued that the respondents were obliged to provide appointment to his son in terms of the instructions in force. The facts in the present case are very different inasmuch as the deceased Railway employee was provided alternative appointment in 2003, which he accepted. Even after the second medical decategorization in 2006 he was found fit in Cee-1 medical category and was not compelled to retire. He has himself sought voluntary retirement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while allowing the Civil Appeal on March 11, 2011 had categorically observed that the respondents had not placed any material on record to establish that the appellant's father was offered any alternative employment and that the Standing Committee had recommended his retirement. On this ground, it was held that the appellant's father was not disentitled from seeking employment on compassionate ground for his son. lt was also pointed out that from the retirement order it was clear that the appellant's father was retired from service pursuant to the recomendations of the Standing Committee. This judgment has no application in the present case as the deceased Railway employee was never recommended for retirement after his medical decategorization in 2006.
16i
23. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunal Singh v. Union cuad 'is also not applicable as the question that was dealt was as to whether the appellant therein was entitled to the benefit of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act. In the instant OA, the deceased Railway employee, after being found medically unfit to continue in the category of Pointsman-I has been given full protection envisaged in the Persons with Disabilities Act Further, after the 2" medical decategorization also, the respondents have not taken any action to terminate him from Railway service. Hence, there has been no infringement of his rights.
24, Likewise, OA.No.972/2010 was allowed as this Tribunal had held that the only ground contained in the impguned order for making the applicant ineligible to seek compassionate appointment in favour of his son was that the appicant was offered alternative post of the Senior Commercial Clerk in the scale of pay in which he is working prior to medical decategorization.
25. In the instant case, the applicant's father's request could not be considered in terms of Serial Circular No.92/2006 as he did not have the requisite left over service of 5 years at the time of medical decategorization.
2& In OA.No.191/2002, the Calcutta Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal had elaborately considered the various provisions in Paras 1301 to 1305 of the ound, Indian Railway Establishment Manual | had directed the respondents to take the applicant back in employment since the respondents had failed to perform their statutory obligation of absorbing the applicant in the same scale of pay or Bh _ 17 17 to Paras 1302 and 1303, which are extracted hereunder:
"1302. Classification of railway servants declared medically unfit - Railway servants declared medically unfit for further service are divisible into two groups:-
(i) Those completely incapacitated for further service in any post on the railway, Le., those who cannot be declared fit even in the 'C' medical category;
(ii) | Those incapacited for further service in the post they are holding but declared fit in a lower medical category and eligible for retention in service in posts corresponding to this lower medical category.
1303. Railway servant totally incapacitated for further service.- A railway servant in group (i) above cannot be retained in service and is not, therefore, eligible for alternative employment. if he is on duty, he shall be invalidated from service from the date of relief of his duty, which should be arranged without delay on receipt of the report of medical authority. If, however, he is granted leave, he shall be invalidated from service on the expiry of such leave, but if he is already on leave, he shall be invalidated from service on the expiry of that leve or extension of leave. The leave
-or extension of leave that may be granted to him after the report of the medical authority has been received, will be so limited that the amount of leave, as debited against the leave account, together with any period of duty beyond the date of the medical authority's report does not exceed 6 months."
As already observed, in the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that the respondents have failed in their duties to provide an alternative post or to create a special supernumerary post in the same grade. The request for voluntary retirement has come from the applicant's father on the ground that he is not in a position to hold ae Ae, 18 fer Ce any kind of Railway duties due to his poor vision. Since he was declare Fi i' Cee-1 medical category he was entitled to be © adjusted against or absorbed in any suitable alternative post or by 'creating a supernumerary post. The respondents cannot be faulted for not having done so as the deceased Railway employee had himself chosen to take voluntary retirement as soon as he was partially decategorised on 27.07.2006.
27. The applicants contend that the deceased Railway employee was not allowed to perform his duties as Gateman and have produced certain illegible copies _ of muster sheets in support of their contentions. These illegible copies are of no help to the applicants. Be that as it may, it is necessary to point out that the memorandum accepting the voluntary retirement of the late Sri V.Lakshmanna has clearly shown his designation as Gateman. Further, even in his representations dated 06.08.2011, 24.05.2012 and 07.07.2012, Sri V.Lakshmanna has stated that he has worked as Gateman/TU in Guntakal Division and that while working as such the concerned Administrative Officer advised him to take voluntary retirement assuring that they would provide employment to his son on compassionate grounds. Since the deceased Railway employee has himself admitted that he worked as Gateman/TU, there is no substance at ail in the contentions of the 2™ applicant in his rejoinder.
26. The applicants contend that the late Railway employee had made a series of representations from 31.12.2006 to 29.10.2012 for compassionate appointment in favour of the 2°" applicant and that the first applicant had also made the Annexure.A-5 representation on 21.07.2014. They have also denied the receipt of the rejection letter 19 & dated 9.92009, which was enclosed along with the reply statement of the"
respondents. Even assuming that the said letter of rejection has not been received, it is very clear that the applicants/deceased Railway employee failed to challenge the inaction of the respondents at the appropriate time by taking recourse to the remedies . available to them under the law. When there was no response from the authorities for appointment of the second applicant on compassionate grounds, the applicants ought to have availed of their legal remedies at the appropriate time. Thus, the inordinate delay that has occurred has not been explained. The application therefore suffers from infirmities of unexplained delay, negligence and laches. --
29. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the OA is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
PRTIFIED TRUE COPY ; OA! 1239/ta-
syessls oes aentrab Agrtcciin ve "Tribunal we sorectatydeiabad Bener "P. Ni Cran he "Free Copy LI/R 22 i CAT (Procedure) Rules"