Mrs. M. Jayalakshmi vs Union of India (UOI)

V.S. Sirpurkar, J.—Normally, the discretion used by the Tribunal in not condoning the delay is not interfered by this Court, particularly in its

writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But, here is a case wherein we are constrained to do so. Procedure is the handmade

of justice. Therefore, the question of limitation could have been looked into by the Tribunal with the compassionate eye. The Petitioner sought for

compassionate allowance under Rule 65 of Pension Rules. The same not having been given by the Respondent, she filed an Original Application

before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was heftily delayed. The Tribunal rejected condonation of delay application and hence this

petition.

We find that this is a lady who was practically on the streets after the death of her husband. In the first place, she is an illiterate person having

been married to a Railway servant, who was serving as a skilled Grade 11 Fitter in the Integral Couch Factory, Chennai. It is an admitted fact that

her husband has expired on for 4.5.1991 and when he died, he was already removed from the service on account of his unexplained absence. So

it is not a case where the husband has committed any grave misconduct before being terminated. However, we are not on the merits of claims. The

claim that he was having indifferent health is ultimately justified by the fact that the husband, in reality, expired barely one year after his removal

from the service. At the time of the death of the husband, this lady was left with two children to raise and being a young widow without support or

husband''s money, she had to migrate to her village.

This is a typical combination case of poverty and illiteracy. It is only out of her good sense that she came back to Chennai and took up odd jobs

as building construction labourer and ultimately landed up in the house of an advocate as a servant. The concerned advocate took up her cause,

understanding the difficulties which the lady has to face and extended her the legal aid by serving a notice to Railways and then by filing application.

Providing the legal aid is one of the directive principles via Article 39A. We are happy that the advocate took up her cause and filled the

application.

We do not think mat this was an ordinary condonation of delay application, which could have I en viewed with the technical eye. The obvious

difficulties faced by the lady owing other illiteracy and poverty should have been viewed with a compassionate approach. Under the circumstances,

even the delay is hefty; we would have condoned the same. We do not agree with the order of the Tribunal rejecting the condonation application

and allow the petition. We request the tribunal to proceed with the matter on merits. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No

costs. Consequently, connected W.M.R No. 19658 of 2000 is closed.