- (1.) This appeal, which is time barred by 116 days, has been filed along with an application for condonation of delay against the order dated 2.12.2008 passed in W.P (S) No.3903/2004 by which the learned Single Judge has been pleased to dispose of the writ petition. Although the counsel for the appellant has failed to explain the delay, we permitted him to address us on the merit of the appeal merely to avoid miscarriage of justice, if there be any on merit.
(2.) In so far as the claim for retiral dues are concerned, liberty to represent before the authorities concerned was granted to the petitioner. However, learned Single Judge was pleased to reject the plea of the petitioner claiming compassionate appointment in place of his deceased father and it was held that the representation of the petitioner claiming compassionate appointment had rightly been rejected on the ground of delay as the same could not have been entertained at a belated stage of 13 years after the death of his father.
(3.) Assailing the aforesaid part of the order, the counsel for the appellant submitted that there were no laches on the part of the petitioner/appellant herein in claiming compassionate appointment as he had filed application claiming compassionate appointment within a period of one year from the date of death of his father and the delay which occurred will have to be attributed to the respondent authorities as it was the authority who had kept the matter pending. This part of the averment is not correct as the learned Single Judge has recorded in his order that the petitioner had filed an application claiming compassionate appointment after 5 years of the death of his father.;