Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Amandeep Gill vs M/O Railways on 15 December, 2025
1 (RA No.67/2025)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Review Application No. 60/00067/2025
in
OA No.060/01208/2023
This the 15th day of December, 2025
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)
Amandeep Gill, aged about 31 years, S/o late Sh. David Gill, R/o Street
Number-5, Jogi Nagar, Bathinda, Punjab-151001.
...Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, Ministry of Railways, Railway Board through its
Chairman & CEO,, Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road, New Delhi.
2. The General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.
3. Senior Division Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt.
4. Station Superintendent, Northern Railway, Bathinda.
5. Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Meena, Welfare Officer, Northern Railways,
Bathinda, Paras Ram Nagar, Near Underground Bridge, Railway Colony, 40
Quarter, Block No.T-136, Quarter No.B, Bhatinda, Punjab.
...Respondent(s)
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana
Vanapalli
Satyanar
DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, Phone=
6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9
bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77,
ayana PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN,
SERIALNUMBER=
053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de094
53dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59,
Vanapalli
CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:12:59+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
2 (RA No.67/2025)
O R D E R (in Circulation)
Per: HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A):
1. This Review Application has been filed under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, read with Rules 17 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 seeking review of the order dated 30.10.2025 passed in Original Application No.060/1208/2023.
2. The operative portion of the order dated 30.10.2025 passed in Original Application No.060/1208/2023, which reads as follows:-
"8. In view of the above facts, this is beyond the competency of the Tribunal to declare the applicant as lawful claimant of compassionate appointment on compassionate grounds as legal heirs of the deceased. The Tribunal also finds that in view of the circumstances explained the order passed by the respondents need not to be interfered with. However, in view of the continuous litigation, it is left open to the applicant whenever he gets a validity of the adoption deed by the competent court, he can make his claim with the respondents.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the present OA filed in this case is devoid of any merit at this stage, and hence, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs."
3. By filing the present Review Application, the applicant is seeking review of order dated 30.10.2025 (Annexure RA/1), whereby, the Tribunal has dismissed the O.A. on the misconceived premise that as the applicant's adoption deed has not been adjudicated upon by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the applicant's parentage remains disputed and he cannot be afforded the benefit of compassionate appointment. The applicant is not adopted and his birth certificate (Annexure A/16), besides, other relevant materials, demonstrating the fact is on record and has not been considered by the Tribunal, thus, necessitating filing of the instant review application.
4. Further, it is stated by the applicant that the applicant is the biological son of Late Sh David Gill s/o Late Sh. R.M. Gill. He was employed as a Ticket Collector, with the Northern Railway at Bathinda. The applicant's father Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli Satyanar DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9 bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, ayana PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de094 53dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, Vanapalli CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:12:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 3 (RA No.67/2025) passed away on 29.03.2009, while he was in service. The applicant as well as his mother Smt. Gian Kaur moved their respective representations before the concerned authority for consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds, on account of the demise Sh David Gill. As per the relevant instructions, the claim being in respect to a Class IV post, the same was within the purview of the competent authority to grant the benefit of compassionate appointment/assistance to a dependent family member of an employee who had died in harness. Pursuant to the said representations, the requisite procedure for processing the applicant's claim was initiated. Pertinently, the proceedings were instituted on the applicant's mother's application and accordingly, she was called for recording her statement, demonstrating no objection if the said benefit was afforded to her son i.e. the applicant. However, to the utter shock and dismay of the applicant, upon reaching the office of the Welfare Officer entrusted with inquiring into their claim, namely Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Meena (respondent no.5), it transpired that the said officer demanded a pay-off in lieu of signing off and processing their application for compassionate appointment. The respondent no.5, under the guise that certain paperwork required the attestation of the applicant's mother, took her thumb impression on blank sheets of paper.
5. The applicant and his mother flatly refused to accede to the illegal demand and requested the official (respondent no. 5) to consider their claim in accordance with law. Irked by their refusal, the official (respondent no. 5) declared that he would ensure that their claim does not fructify. Equipped with the blank documents containing Smt. Gian Kaur's thumb impression, he vindictively proceeded to fabricate a letter dated 04.06.2009 (Annexure A/1), wherein she allegedly makes a concession that the applicant is the son of one Jarnail Singh, who was her son from an earlier marriage with one Mal Singh. Based his enquiry on said letter/concession dated 04.06.2009 Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli Satyanar DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9 bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, ayana PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de094 53dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, Vanapalli CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:12:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 4 (RA No.67/2025) (Annexure A-1), the official (respondent no. 5) presented a report dated 08.06.2009 (Annexure A/2) to the competent authority stating that the applicant was not the biological son of the deceased employee (David Gill) and that the adoption of the applicant was not according to the law under the Adoption & Maintenance Act, and as such, he was not entitled to the benefit of compassionate appointment. Accordingly, on account of the aforementioned report dated 08.06.2009, the applicant's claim was rejected vide the impugned order dated 31.08.2010 (Annexure A/3).
6. The impugned order dated 31.08.2010 (Annexure A/3) was then challenged by way of Civil Suit No.3953 of 2013 before the Civil Courts, Bhatinda. The applicant is the biological son of the deceased employee Sh. David Gill & Smt. Gian Kaur, the latter having also been arrayed as a defendant therein, who put in appearance and supported the case of the applicant (plaintiff therein). Copy Written Statement as well as Affidavit by way of evidence, filed by the applicant's mother Smt. Gian Kaur, copy of ration card no. 208488, copy of declaration supplied to respondent-board by the David Gill himself, copy of letter & medical record and copy of school leaving certificates are appended herewith as Annexures A/4 to A/11. The challenge was rejected by the Learned Trial Court vide it's judgment and decree dated 08.09.2015 (Annexure A/12) on the premise that in the absence of a birth certificate and in the alternative, having brought no material to establish a valid adoption, the applicant had been unable to establish that he is the biological/legally adopted son of Late Sh. David Gill. The suit was otherwise held to be non-maintainable as well, with the same required to be agitated before the concerned CA.T. The Trial Court arrived at the conclusion by primarily relying on the alleged letter/concession dated 04.06.2009 (Annexure A/1).
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli Satyanar DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9 bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, ayana PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de094 53dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, Vanapalli CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:12:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 5 (RA No.67/2025)
7. It is further added that an appeal was preferred against the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2015 (Annexure A/12), which was also rejected vide judgment and decree dated 18.01.2017. The 1st Appellate Court went a step further in perpetuating the hardship of the applicant and declared him to be the son of Karnail Singh and Parmajit Kaur, sans any averment or material in support thereof. Smt. Paramjit Kaur was an official witness called by the applicant in the proceedings before the Learned Trial Court (Annexure A/14).
The judgment and decree dated 18.01.2017 (Annexure A/13) was further assailed before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, by way of R.S.A. No. 4857 of 2017, which came to be finally disposed off vide order dated 02.05.2023, wherein the Hon'ble Court afforded the applicant the liberty to agitate his claim before the Court of Competent Jurisdiction i.e. this Tribunal (Annexure A/15). Thereafter, an O.A. was preferred before this Tribunal, which was dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2025. The reasoning adopted in rejecting the applicant's claim was that since no competent court has adjudicated upon validity of the applicant's adoption deed, the applicant could not be termed as the legal/biological son of the deceased employee. The said finding is patently erroneous, with this Tribunal having not considered material averments and evidence on record, besides, having misapplied settled law.
8. The Tribunal has not appreciated the fact that the birth certificate of the applicant is on record, which brings a quietus to the issue of parentage. The applicant's birth certificate (Annexure A/16) having been issued by the competent authority under Section 13(3), read with Section 17, of the Registration of birth and death Act, 1969, the same would be conclusive proof of the applicant's parentage, in accordance with the presumption under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It belies logic as to why said document was not considered and how credence was given to the allegations Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli Satyanar DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9 bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, ayana PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de094 53dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, Vanapalli CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:12:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 6 (RA No.67/2025) levelled by respondent no.5, against whom the applicant has raised categorical averments of corruption and having fabricated documents to defeat his claim. The said allegations have not been refuted by either of the respondents, a fact which has also not been considered. The onus has wrongly been shifted onto the applicant, whereas, it is upon the respondents to demonstrate that the birth certificate is false/fabricated.
9. The Tribunal has not appreciated the fact that a perusal of the letter dated 04.06.2009 (ANNEXURE A/1) would reveal that undisputedly, the applicant's mother Smt. Gian Kaur was a rustic/illiterate lady, as the said letter contains a simple thumb impression. As per the version set up by respondent-board in the earlier round of litigation, the letter in question (Annexure A/1) had been formulated on the instructions of Smt. Gian Kaur, who had then affirmed it's contents by way of her thumb impression, in the presence of her alleged son Karnail Singh (from the alleged previous marriage). However, despite the letter & contents having been vehemently denied by the applicant and his mother (it's alleged scribe), the letter dated 04.06.2009 (Annexure A/1) was taken to be the gospel truth, first by respondent-board and subsequently, by the Learned Trial Court & First Appellate Court as well, in complete derogation of settled law, particularly Section 21 of the Evidence Act, 1872, as the question of it's authenticity was never considered, despite repeated pleas by the applicant/his mother.
10. The Tribunal has also not appreciated that even otherwise, prior to issuance of the birth certificate (Annexure A/16), the applicant had supplied the respondent-board with sufficient material (Annexure A/6 10 A/11) to rectify it's erroneous decision (Annexure A-3), however, the applicant's pleas fell on deaf ears as the sole intent of the entire impugned exercise, set in motion by Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Meena (respondent no. 5), was to harass and teach the applicant and his family a lesson. It appears that the Tribunal has, Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli Satyanar DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9 bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, ayana PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de094 53dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, Vanapalli CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:12:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 7 (RA No.67/2025) in a sense, erroneously followed the findings conclusion arrived at by the learned Civil Courts failing to appreciate the fact that on account of the liberty granted by Hon'ble High Court, allowing the applicant to pursue his claim before the Court of Competent Jurisdiction i.e. this Tribunal, vide it's order dated 02.05.2023 (Annexure A/15), as is settled law and also in terms of Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the findings recorded in the previous round of litigation between the parties would stand nullified. The time spent in the previous round of litigation would be required to be factored in while considering said claim of appointment. Therefore, the review applicant prayed that the order dated 30.10.2025 may be reviewed and the applicant's claims as advanced in the OA be accepted.
11. The OA was decided after going through the pleadings and hearing of both the parties. An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f).
12. The scope of review is very limited. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta & Anr, reported in (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 735 scanned various earlier judgments and had laid sown the following guidelines:-
"35. The principles which can be culled out from the above-noted judgments are:
(i) The power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision under Section 22(3)(f) of the Act is akin/ analogous to the power of a civil court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
(iii) The expression "any other sufficient reason" appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds.Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli
Satyanar DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9 bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, ayana PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de094 53dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, Vanapalli CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:12:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 8 (RA No.67/2025)
(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f).
(v) An erroneous order/ decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review.
(vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench of the tribunal or of a superior court.
(vii) While considering an application for review, the 4 RA No.48/2024 in OA No. 060/273/2021 tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision.
The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent.
(viii) Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the court/tribunal earlier."
13. I am, therefore, of the view that the law noticed hereinabove is squarely applicable in the present case and since no error apparent on the face of record has been pointed out or established, the present Review Application is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.
14. In view of the aforesaid, the Review Application is dismissed in circulation on merits.
(ANJALI BHAWRA) Member (A) /sv/ Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli Satyanar DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Phone= 6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9 bb734425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, ayana PostalCode=342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER= 053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de094 53dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, Vanapalli CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.19 16:12:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0