- (1.) Heard Shri R.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Smt Suniti Sachan, learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) The petitioner has assailed the order dated 21.01.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in M.A. No.332/001953/2016 whereby the petitioner claims petition filed against the order dated 27.08.2012 has been rejected. The claim of compassionate appointment has been rejected being barred by time. The petitioner being married sister of the Santosh Kumar Yadav (deceased) had claimed for compassionate appointment. Santosh Kumar Yadav died on 30.06.2011. Thereafter, she submitted the representations on 12.01.2012 and 28.01.2012 for her compassionate appointment but the same was rejected by the Divisional Manager (Personal), Northen Railway vide order dated 27.08.2012 on the ground that there is no rule to give compassionate appointment to married sister. The petitioner did not challenge the said order, before any forum. Whereas after the judgment passed by this Court given in the case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava in Writ-C No. 60881 of 2015 and other connected matters whereby the married daughter was recognised as an eligible for consideration of compassionate appointment, the petitioner had come forward to file a claim petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the order dated 27.07.2012. The provisions contained under Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, 1985 prescribes limitations for institution of applications before the learned Tribunal. Dealing with the petitioner's case in the light of the provisions of Section 21 of the Act. The respondents had rejected petitioner's original application being barred by time.
(3.) Shri R.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he, before the Central Administrative Tribunal had also filed an application for condonation of delay duly supported with an affidavit whereby he had explained the reasons as to why he had come forward to file the claim petition with delay. The ground for condonation of delay as taken by the petitioner before the Tribunal was the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava (supra) whereby this Court had declared that the married daughter also be included in the definition of daughter being dependent of the deceased. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that same analogy should be applied in the petitioner's case whereas we are of the view that the aforesaid decision was given on 04.12.2015 and by that time the petitioner's claim had become barred by time in view of the provision of Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, 1981.;