Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Smt Pooja Rajpoot vs North Central Railway on 19 May, 2026
Reserved
On 20th April, 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
*********
Misc. Application No. 4626 of 2025
In
Original Application No. 457 of 2023
Allahabad this the 19th day of May, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member-J
Smt. Pooja Rajpoot wife of Late Anoop Singh Ex-Fitter, North Central Railway/
Under S.S.E./Electrical East, Jhansi.
C/o Ajab Singh R/o Village & Post- Garia Gaon, District Jhansi.
Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Lakhan Singh Kushwaha
Vs.
1. Union of India through its General Manager, North Central Railway, Head
Quarter Office, Subedarganj, Prayagraj.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Jhansi.
3. Km. Sadhana Rajpoot aged about 30 years D/o Late Haripat Singh, R/o
Karaiyanpura, Badhai wali gali, Police Station Chirgaon, District Jhansi,
U.P.
Respondents
By Advocates: Ms. Seema Srivastava
Mr. Raj Kamal Srivastava
ORDER
Mr. Lakhan Singh Kushwaha, counsel for the applicant, Ms. Seema Srivastava, counsel for the official respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. Raj Kamal Srivastava, counsel for the respondent No. 3 are present and heard.
2. Through the instant Misc. Application, the respondent No. 3 in the O.A. has sought for recall of the Order pronounced on 30.06.2025 by this Tribunal with the prayer that after recalling the aforesaid Order, the MANISH MEHROTRA respondents No. 1 and 2 may be directed to provide compassionate appointment to respondent No. 3 - Km. Sadhana Rajpoot. 2
3. Counsel for the respondent No. 3 (applicant in M.A. No. 4626/2025) submitted that vide Order and direction of this Tribunal dated 30.06.2025, this Tribunal has directed as follows: -
10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.05.2023 is hereby quashed, in view of the observations made in paragraphs 7 and 8 above.
The respondents are directed to consider and grant compassionate appointment to the applicant, being the widow of late Anoop Singh Rajpoot treating him as a regular employee, since he had completed the mandatory three-year training period and thereby stood appointed to a regular post. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
11. Accordingly, the instant Original Application is disposed of No costs."
4. Counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that this Tribunal has erred in allowing the aforesaid O.A. and made a direction in favour of the applicant - Pooja Rajpoot to consider and grant her compassionate appointment. He submitted that no notice was served upon his client hence, she was unable to file any reply. Counsel for the applicant submitted that brother Late Anoop Singh of respondent No. 3 was married in the year 2013 to Smt. Pooja Rajpoot and after 15 months her brother was kidnapped from his house at about 1:00 p.m. afternoon on 18.10.2014. At that time only applicant was in the house along with her husband. The applicant lodged F.I.R. in Police Station Chirgaon, Jhansi on 23.12.2014 stating therein that the applicant was at her house along with her husband on 18.10.2014 and at about 1:00 p.m. afternoon, two persons came in the house and asked applicant's husband Late Anoop Singh Rajpoot that Manoj Yadav is calling you and both went out of house with Late Anoop Singh. However, since the day i.e. 18.10.2014 no information has been received about Anoop Singh Rajpoot. Counsel for the private respondent No. 3 has alleged that the applicant was involved MANISH MEHROTRA in kidnapping of the applicant as the death certificate of Anoop Singh Rajppot was issued on the same date i.e. 18.10.2024. He further alleged that even the dead body of Anoop Singh Rajpoot was not recovered by the police. He further submitted that the applicant before one day of 3 incident i.e. 18.10.2024, left the house of deceased employee and has taken all the jewelries about Rs.10 lakhs, other valuables and motor bike. Hence, the events of incident indicate that the applicant herself concocted the plot only to obtain compassionate appointment. Counsel for the private respondent No. 3 submitted that they have received the information from concerned official in the respondents' department that on the basis of forged/fake death certificate, the applicant has managed to get the compassionate appointment in her favour. However, the mother of deceased employee has given an application to provide compassionate appointment in favour of private respondent No. 3 and on the application of mother of deceased employee, the Divisional Personnel Officer, N.C. Railway. Counsel for the private respondent No. 3 submitted that the applicant has made party to respondent No. 3 but she deliberately mentioned the wrong address hence, no notice was served upon the respondent No. 3. Hence, she could not appear in the court proceeding and the applicant had obtained ex parte Order dated 30.06.2025 in her favour.
5. Aggrieved with the Order dated 30.6.2025 passed by this Tribunal, the respondent No. 3 has filed a Writ Petition No. 12047/2025 before the Hon'ble High Court and on 21.08.2025, the Hon'ble High Court, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner (respondent No. 3 in the O.A.), has passed that it appears that the notice was not duly served upon the respondent No. 3 (petitioner in Writ Petition), it is open to her to file appropriate application before the Tribunal. Hence, she has filed the present Misc. Application No. 4626 of 2025.
6. Counsel for the applicant - Smt. Pooja Rajpoot has filed the objection against the Misc. Application No. 4626/2025 and denied the MANISH MEHROTRA contention of private respondent No. 3 made in the Recall Application No. 4626/2025. It is submitted that mother-in-law and sister-in-law were also living with the applicant in the same house and regarding kidnapping 4 of her husband, the applicant moved an application to the police concerned on 25.10.2014, which was registered as case crime no. 450/2014 under section 365 IPC. Subsequently the police concerned have submitted a charge sheet against the accused persons on 17.07.2015 under Section 302, 201, 365 I.P.C. and 22/23 Money Laundering Act and the trial is pending before the court of Spl. Judge (Dakaitee), Jhansi. It is submitted that the respondent No. 3 making false allegation upon the applicant that she was involved in this conspiracy. If there is any conspiracy the opposite party can make police complaint against the applicant. Counsel for the applicant further submitted that after the death of husband of applicant, the respondent No. 3 with her mother throw out the applicant from their house. Counsel for the applicant submitted that there were false allegations made by the respondent No. 3 against her only to cancel her compassionate appointment. It is submitted that vide order dated 29.02.2024, the registry of this Tribunal was directed to issue the registered notice to the Private Respondent No. 3 within 07 working days. In compliance of the order dated 29.02.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal the registry of this Hon'ble Tribunal issued notice to the opposite party no. 3 on 01.03.2024 through Dispatch no. 453 by registered post. The notices have been duly and sufficiently served upon the opposite party no. 3 as no un-served notice received back in the registry of this Hon'ble Tribunal till now. In this regard, the applicant has relied upon the Section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1897"). Section 27 gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. Counsel for the applicant has also relied upon Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Counsel for the applicant has also relied upon some case laws.
MANISH MEHROTRA
7. Heard, counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings on record. 5
8. From the observation of Hon'ble High Court dated 21.08.2025 regarding factual inquiry, as alleged, that the notice was not duly served upon the respondent No. 3, I have gone through the records of case and the office report dated 08.05.2024 wherein it is mentioned that the notice was served on 01.03.2024 vide dispatch No. 435 registered post and the same was not returned back to the office of this Tribunal.
9. The main dispute in the present matter raised through Misc. Recall Application No. 4626/2025 is to recall the Order dated 30.06.2025 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 457/2023 vide which this Tribunal directed the respondents' authority consider the case for granting compassionate appointment in favour of the applicant. The private respondent No. 3 Sadhana Rajpoot has filed this Recall Application with the allegation that no notice was served upon her as the applicant has given the wrong address of her in the O.A. and the matter was heard ex parte without giving opportunity of hearing to respondent No. 3. It is alleged that the applicant has got the compassionate appointment in place of her deceased husband Anoop Singh who was Ex Fitter in North Central Railway at Jhansi by using forged death certificate of deceased employee. It was further alleged in the Recall Application that even the dead body of deceased employee was not recovered by the Police. It was also alleged that the applicant manipulated the kidnapping of her husband Late Anoop Singh as at the time of kidnapping of Late Anoop Singh, she was alone living with her husband. It was also alleged that the death certificate of Late Anoop Singh was issued on the same date of death i.e. 18.10.2014. It was submitted by the respondent No. 3 that her mother has given an application to the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to Sadhana Rajpoot - respondent No. 3. Aggrieved with the Order dated MANISH MEHROTRA 30.06.2025 of this Tribunal, the respondent No. 3 has filed the Writ Petition No. 12047/2025 before the Hon'ble High Court in which it was observed by the Hon'ble High Court that it appears that no notice was served upon the respondent No. 3 hence, she could not appear in the 6 court proceeding. However, it is open to her to file appropriate application before the Tribunal. Hence, she has filed the present Recall Application No. 4626/2025. However, apart from allegation the issue is regarding entitlement of wife of deceased employee or of a sister of deceased employee for the purpose of compassionate appointment. In my view, deceased during service period died and there is no dispute regarding death. The question of entitlement for consideration amongst wife and sister, who has first right to be considered for compassionate appointment, it is settled that wife has first right for compassionate appointment in case of death of her husband. As I have observed earlier in Judgment and Order dated 30.06.2025 regarding permanent status of deceased employee after completion of his training period, therefore, there is no question of subsequent right of sister of deceased, if wife is alive. Even though no notice was served upon the respondent No. 3, as alleged, the case of respondent No. 3 was also considered in comparison to the applicant. It is also noticed that the right of wife of pre deceased employee Late Haripat Singh was ceased when her son deceased employee Late Anoop Singh after completion of requisite training got the job. Hence, interpretation regarding right of sister in pursuance to R.B.E. No. 87/2007 for subsequent opportunity to nominee has no significance and the widow of Late Haripat Singh and mother of respondent No. 3 cannot recommend for job under compassionate appointment quota and for subsequent appointment. Therefore, there is no error in the Judgment and Order dated 30.06.2025 of this Tribunal.
10. In view of the above, I find no merit in the Recall Application No. 4626/2025, which is accordingly rejected. All the pending MAs shall be deemed to have been disposed of. No order as to costs.
MANISH MEHROTRA (Rajnish Kumar Rai) Member (Judicial) /M.M/