1/4

C
ou

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY
NAGPURBENCH,NAGPUR.

rt

3107WP3374.14Judgment

WRITPETITIONNO.3374OF2014
PETITIONERS:

1. UnionofIndia,throughitsGeneralManager,
CentralRailway,Mumbai400001.
2. DivisionalRailwayManager,CentralRailway,
BhusawalDivision,Dist.Bhusawal.

ig
h

...VERSUS...

1. ShriPradeepUttamGid,R/oC/oRamhari
Malhari Gote, Tondgaon, Tahsil & Dist.
Washim.

RESPONDENT:

om

ba
y

Mr.N.P.Lambat,counselforthepetitioners.
Mr.A.M.Kukday,counselfortherespondent.

CORAM:SMT.VASANTIA.NAIK&
A.M.BADAR,JJ.
DATE:31.07.2015.

ORALJUDGMENT(PerSmt.VasantiA.Naik,J.)
Rule. Rulemadereturnableforthwith.Thepetitionisheard
finallywiththeconsentofthelearnedcounselfortheparties.
2.

Bythispetition,thepetitionerUnionofIndiachallengesthe

order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 16/01/2014,

allowinganoriginalapplicationfiledbytherespondentanddirecting
thepetitionerstoconsiderappointingtherespondentoncompassionate
ground.

::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2015 21:43:10 :::

3107WP3374.14Judgment

3.

rt

2/4

Itisnotindisputethattherespondentisthesonofthesecond

C
ou

wifeofShriUttamGid,whowasintheserviceofthepetitioners.Shri
Uttamhadexpiredon06/02/1999.Atthetimeof thedeathofShri
Uttam,therespondentwasaminor.Therespondentattainedtheageof
majorityon22/10/2003.In2011,therespondentmadeanapplication
tothepetitioners,seekinghisappointmentoncompassionateground.

ig
h

Theapplicationfiledbytherespondentwasrejectedbythepetitioners
byanorder,dated26/09/2011.Beingaggrievedbythesaidorder,the
respondent filed the original application before the Central
Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal, by the

impugnedorder,dated16/01/2014,allowedtheapplicationfiledbythe
respondentanddirectedthepetitionerstoreconsiderthecaseofthe

ba
y

respondent,inaccordancewithlaw.
4.

ShriLambat,thelearnedcounselforthepetitioners,submitted

thattheTribunalwasnotjustifiedinallowingtheoriginalapplicationof

om

therespondent.ItissubmittedthatthereisnothingintheRegulations
oftheRailwayBoardprovidingcompassionateground,thatpermitsthe
appointment of a son of the second wife of an employee on
compassionateground. Itissubmittedthattherespondentwouldnot
beentitledtocompassionateappointment,asadmittedly,thedeceased
employeehadtwowivesandtherespondentisthesonofthesecond
wifeoftheemployee.ItissubmittedthattheTribunal,presumedthat
theorderofrejection,dated26/09/2011wasbasedontheletterofthe
DeputyDirector,Establishment,RailwayBoard,dated02/01/1992that
wassetasidebytheCalcuttaHighCourt.Itissubmittedthatinthe

::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2015 21:43:10 :::

3107WP3374.14Judgment

rt

3/4

absence of any right in the respondent to seek appointment on

C
ou

compassionateground,thattooafteraperiodofmorethantenyears
fromthedeathoftheemployee,theTribunaloughttohavedismissed
theoriginalapplication,filedbytherespondent.
5.

Shri Kukday, the learned counsel for the respondent,

submittedthattheTribunalhadrightlyallowed,theoriginalapplication

ig
h

filed by the respondent, as the letter of the Railway Board, dated

02/01/1992wasquashedandsetasidebytheCalcuttaHighCourtand
the said order has attained finality. It is stated that the respondent

became aware in respect of his right to seek compassionate

appointment, in the year 2010 and, therefore, the application was
immediately filed. The learned counsel for the respondent, however,

ba
y

fairlystatedthatthereisnorule,regulation,instructionormaterialon
thebasisofwhichthesonofasecondwifeofanemployeecouldseek

om

appointmentoncompassionateground.
6.

Onhearingthelearnedcounselfortheparties,itappearsthat

theTribunalwasnotjustifiedinallowingtheoriginalapplicationfiled
by the respondent. Admittedly, Shri Uttam had two wives and the
respondentisthesonofthesecondwife.Nomaterialhasbeenpointed
outonbehalfoftherespondent,thatentitlesthesonofasecondwifeto
employmentoncompassionateground.Thereisnothingonrecordto
showthatasonoradaughterofthesecondwifewouldbeentitledto
claim appointment on compassionate ground. According to the
petitioners and rightly so, since the second marriage was not
permissible,itwasnotpossibleforthepetitionerstogiveappointment

::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2015 21:43:10 :::

3107WP3374.14Judgment

rt

4/4

tothesonofthesecondwife.Wealsofindthatthereisinordinatedelay

C
ou

infilingtheapplicationforcompassionateappointment.ShriUttamhad
expired in the year 1999, the respondent had attained the age of
majority on 22/10/2003 and the application for appointment on
compassionategroundwasfiledintheyear2010.Therespondenthad
filedtheapplicationforcompassionateappointmentaftermorethanten

ig
h

years from the death of his father. The object of compassionate

appointmentistoprovidesuccortotheemployee,whodiesinharness.
Withthelapseofmorethantenyearsfromthedeathofthefatherof
the respondent, the object of granting compassionate appointment

standsfrustrated.TheTribunalwasnotjustifiedinallowingtheoriginal
applicationfiledbytherespondentmerelyonthegroundthattheletter
oftheRailwayBoard,dated02/01/1992wassetasidebytheCalcutta

ba
y

High Court. Even assuming that the Railway Board's letter, dated
02/01/1992 stands and is revived, still the respondent cannot claim

om

compassionateappointmentonthebasisofthesame.
7.

Hence,forthereasonsaforesaid,thewritpetitionisallowed.

The impugned order of the Tribunal is quashed and set aside. The
originalapplicationfiledbytherespondentstandsdismissed.
Ruleismadeabsoluteintheaforesaidtermswithnoorderas
tocosts.

JUDGE

JUDGE

KHUNTE

::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2015 21:43:10 :::