Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Darshit B Chauhan vs Western Railway on 18 September, 2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Ahmedabad Bench,
Ahmedabad
O.A. No. 343 OF 2022
Orders reserved on : 03.09.2024
Orders pronounced on : 18.09.2024
Hon'ble Mr. Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
Shri Darshit S/o Late Shri Bhagatbhai Chauhan,
Age: 37 years, yet to be appointed on compassionate ground
in the office of the respondents
residing at Sarkari Godown, Vishipara,
Vankaner, Dist. Rajkpt - 363621, Gujarat.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri M.S. Trivedi)
VERSUS
1. The General Manager,
Western Railway,
Church Gate,
Mumbai-400020.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager (E),
Western Railway, Divisional Office,
Rajkot Division, Kothi Compound,
Rajkot-360001.
3. Smt. Labhuben
W/o Late Shri Bhagatbhai Chauhan,
R/o Vishipara, Waknaner, Dist. Rajkot-363621.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri H.D. Shukla for R-1 and R-2)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Member (J):
In the instant case, being aggrieved by rejection of application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground vide impugned order dated 23.6.2021 (Annexure A1) passed by the official respondents, the applicant 2 OA No.343/2022 has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
"(a) That the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to
allow/admit this application.
(b) That the Hon'ble Tribunal further be pleased to
quash and set-aside impugned action ex-facie, illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional action, decision/ communication/ Order No.E/ CON/890/ 60/01/15/MISC, dated 23/06/2021, issued by the respondents, regarding rejection of the claim of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground being Ward/Family member of the deceased Railway employee Shri Bhagat Kanji - Ex Points man under S.S.W.K.R., in view of decision / direction of the learned Tribunal dtd. 5/9/2019 in OA 421 of 2016 and others.
(c) That the Hon'ble Tribunal further be pleased to direct the respondents to re-consider the claim of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground a fresh and considering the fact that NOC is not required in the present case, as the Respondent No.3 is not ready and willing to give NOC in favour of the applicant.
(d) Any such other and further relief that may be deemed fit and proper may be given."
2. The relevant facts of the case are that:
2.1 The applicant herein is the son of first wife of the deceased Railway employee, namely, late Shri Bhagatbhai Chauhan, Ex.
Points man working under S.S.-WKR., Western Railway, died on 4.6.2014.
2.2 After death of the deceased Railway employee, i.e., late Shri Bhagatbhai Chauhan, the applicant herein had filed OA 395/2016 for issuance/direction upon the official respondents to grant him appointment on compassionate ground. He had also filed OA No.421/2016 being son of the deceased Railway employee for grant of retirement dues in his favour.
2.3 At the same time, one Smt. Labhuben Chauhan claiming her as second wife of deceased Railway employee, had also filed OA 3 OA No.343/2022 No.40/2018 for grant of family pension and other retiral dues in her favour being legally wedded widow of the deceased Railway employee.
2.4 This Tribunal heard all those three cases together and the said OAs were disposed of vide common Order dated 5.9.2019 with the following observations/directions:-
"21. In view of the foregoing factual and the legal scenario it would be appropriate to quash all impugned order / orders of all three OAs of this set and to dispose of the OAs with direction. In result impugned order/ orders of all three OAs are hereby quashed and respondents thus are directed as under:-
(a) To consider the case of applicant Smt. Labhuben, for family pension and to grant her family pension as per Rules and the arrear calculated be paid, with interest at the rate permissible under Rules,
(b) To release settlement / retiral dues, one fourth in favour of Labhuben W/o Late Shri Bhagatbhai Chauhan, and one fourth each in favour of Sh. Darshit B Chauhan, Shamji, and Ghanshyam S/o ex employee Bhagat Bhai Kanjibhai Chauhan.
(c) To consider the case of applicant Sh. Darshit B. Chauhan for appointment on compassionate ground as per Rules / Instructions which deals with the situation where NOC is not given by the widow of the deceased ex employee.
(d) The respondents are also directed that in case any formalities to be fulfilled on the part of any beneficiary is needed, viz. filling of any form or supply of any document, concerned beneficiary giving reasonable time to do the needful shall be informed by respondents, in writing, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Directions at Clause (a), (b) & (c) be complied with within two months after fulfilment of formalities by beneficiary, if he /she / they was/were directed to do.
22. With above said observation and directions all three OAs stand disposed of. Pending M.A., if any in either of OA also stand disposed of accordingly."
2.5 In compliance of the directions contained in para 21 (c) of the Order passed by this Tribunal as referred hereinabove, the 4 OA No.343/2022 official respondents, had considered the representation/ application dated 19.3.2021 of the applicant for grant of appointment on compassionate ground and same has been rejected vide impugned order dated 23.6.2021 mainly on the ground that respondent no.3 i.e. Smt. Labhuben, legally wedded second wife of the father of the applicant had not nominated the applicant as 'breadwinner' for the family and in terms of the instructions containing RBE 42/2018. Therefore, neither NOC is given by the person who has the first right for the job nor nominated the applicant as breadwinner of the family nor signed declaration to be signed by the widow as required by the extent rules and instructions of the said RBE and thus the claim of the applicant was rejected.
2.6 Hence, the instant OA has been filed by the applicant for seeking the reliefs as quoted herein above.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the official respondents had filed their reply denying the claim of the applicant and prayed for dismissal of the OA. The applicant had filed his rejoinder besides refuting the contents of the reply had reiterated his claim and submissions as mentioned in the OA.
4. During the course of hearing, Shri M.S. Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant mainly argued as under:-
4.1 The impugned order dated 23.6.2021, vide which the applicant's request for grant of appointment on compassionate ground had been rejected, is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional action of the part of the official respondents, as this Tribunal while deciding the earlier OA No.421/2016 and others cases had given a direction to the official respondents to consider the applicant's claim for grant of appointment on compassionate ground. However, they have rejected the same in a casual and mechanically manner which is not sustainable in the eyes of law.5 OA No.343/2022
4.2 Learned counsel further submitted that in para 19 of the aforesaid order dated 5.9.2019 passed by this Tribunal in earlier litigations (supra) had considered the objection raised by the respondent no.3 therein, i.e., the second wife of the deceased Railway employee that compassionate appointment should not be given to the applicant, i.e., son of first wife of the deceased Railway employee.
This Tribunal had also recorded in the Order that the applicant herein had declared that he is ready to relinquish his right to claim his ¼ share from the payable retiral dues of his deceased father to maintain the harmony in the family. It is noted that the respondent no.3 therein, i.e., said Labhuben (second wife of father of the applicant) had not applied for grant of appointment on compassionate ground. Since said respondent no.3 was not willing to give consent/NOC for grant of appointment on compassionate ground in favour of the applicant herein, this Tribunal considering the said stand of second wife of the father of the applicant, had taken a balance view and had directed the official respondents to consider the case of the applicant for grant of appointment on compassionate ground.
However, the official respondents had lost sight to the fact that the applicant is one of the family member(s), dependent(s) and ward(s) of the deceased Railway employee, who can claim for appointment on compassionate ground and there is no dispute of the fact that respondent no.3 is not ready and willing to give NOC for appointment on compassionate ground in favour of the applicant.
In the circumstances, the official respondents ought not to have rejected the claim of the applicant only on the ground that the second wife of the deceased Railway employee has not consented/granted NOC in favour of the applicant for consideration of his claim for grant of appointment on compassionate ground. The official respondents ought to have 6 OA No.343/2022 considered the claim of the applicant by taking into consideration the fact that he is ready to relinquish his ¼ share from the payment of retiral dues which is payable to him to maintain the family harmony and in the interest of family which includes private respondent no.3 herein.
4.3 Learned counsel further submitted that the official respondents have miserably misinterpreted the instructions of the Railway Board issued vide RBE No.42 of 2018. , as per para 3(b) of the said RBE the Railway Board has also taken into account the observation of Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand (Ranchi) in Writ Petition No.WP(S) 16 of 2014 (pronounced on 24.07.2014) that "Compassionate appointment is a matter of policy of the employer and the employer cannot be compelled to provide compassionate appointment contrary to its policy/scheme. When there is specific circular which clearly provides that the children of second marriage of the employee shall not be eligible for compassionate appointment, no direction can be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner."
Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that since the children of second wife of the deceased Govt. employee is/are not eligible for grant of appointment on compassionate ground, the official respondents ought to have considered the case of the applicant for grant of compassionate appointment in favour of the applicant herein, who is the first son of the deceased Railway employee, however, the official respondents have failed to do so.
4.4 Learned counsel for the applicant lastly submitted that if one has regard to the fact and circumstances of the case, the official respondents are required to be directed to re-consider the case of the applicant for grant of appointment on compassionate ground afresh considering the fact that NOC is not required in the present case, as the respondent no.3 admittedly not willing and ready to give NOC in favour of the applicant.
7 OA No.343/20225. On the other hand, Shri H.D. Shukla, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 by referring the averments made in the counter reply submitted that in the light of the directions of this Tribunal contained in Order dated 5.9.2019 passed while deciding the aforesaid three OAs and also keeping in view the representation dated 19.3.2021 of the applicant, the case of the applicant had been reconsidered as well as status of the family of the said deceased Railway employee and found that legally wedded surviving widow, i.e., second wife had not given her NOC in favour of the applicant for grant of employment on compassionate ground.
Therefore, non-grant of NOC by legally wedded surviving widow in favour of the applicant herein clearly indicates that she does not consider the applicant as breadwinner of the family and as such granting of employment to the applicant do not serve the very purpose of the Scheme of Compassionate Appointment.
In support of above contention, learned counsel for the official respondents has placed reliance on the judgment dated 30.9.2022 (Annexure R/1) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & Ors. vs. Anusree K.B. in Civil Appeal No.6958/2022, para 7 thereof reads as under:-
7. While considering the issue involved in the present appeal, the law laid down by this Court on compassionate ground on the death of the deceased employee are required to be referred to and considered. In the recent decision, this Court in the case of Director of Treasuries in Karnataka and Anr. Vs. V. Somyashree, 2021 SCC Online SC 704, had occasion to consider the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground. After referring to the decision of this Court in N.C. Santhosh Vs. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617, this Court has summarised the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground as under:-
(i) that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule;
(ii) that no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment;8 OA No.343/2022
(iii) the appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of the principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;
(iv) Appointment on compassionate ground can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down by the State's policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy;
(v) the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment."
5.1 Learned counsel also submitted that compassionate appointment to the post under the Ministry of Railways is granted after following the rules and instructions issued by the Ministry of Railway/Railway Board on the subject time to time and as per the RBE No.22/2014 (Annexure R2 refer), in the event of death of medically unfit employee without making clear his wishes, the first preference for appointment on compassionate ground should be that of spouse as done in the case of death and in terms of the instructions contained in RBE 70/2014 (Annexure R2 refer), it should be left to the discretion of the family concerned in case of the death of the ex-employee to request for job either to spouse or any child (whether son or daughter (unmarried/married/ divorced/widowed)) subject to the condition that concerned child will be breadwinner of the family concerned.
Learned counsel further submitted that as per the instructions contained in RBE 42/2018, it is the right of the legally wedded surviving widow to nominate breadwinner for the family and nomination should be in whose favour is specified in para 5(a).
5.2 After drawing our attention to the aforesaid provisions, the learned counsel also submitted that in the present case, family of ex-employee means the son(s) and daughter(s) of the first wife 9 OA No.343/2022 Late Smt. Ranjanben and Smt. Labhuben, legally wedded surviving widow in whose favor, this Tribunal has sanctioned family pension, and so second wife of the deceased Railway employee is the first preference for appointment on compassionate ground as per the extent rules contained in RBE 22/2014.
The denial of NOC by legally wedded surviving widow, namely, Smt. Labhuben in favour of the applicant herein clearly indicates that the requirement of the "breadwinner" of the family of the deceased Railway employee has not been fulfilled.
5.3 It is submitted that the applicant had not mentioned in his application/declaration the name of legally wedded surviving widow Smt. Labhuben while claiming compassionate appointment and he will look after the said family members of the deceased Railway employee. Therefore, also applicant cannot be treated as Breadwinner for the dependent family members of the deceased Railway servant.
Further the said Smt. Labhuben, legally wedded surviving widow has not preferred any claim for employment on compassionate ground in her favour, but she denied for nominating the applicant as "breadwinner for the family of the deceased Railway employee". Therefore in absence of any other Rule or instructions except fulfillment of the terms of the instructions contained in RBE 42/2018 the claim of the applicant cannot be entertained for grant of appoitment on compassionate ground. Therefore, the reasons assigned for not accepting the claim of the applicant by the official respondents is just and proper and the same is in accordance with the Scheme in vogue.
5.4 Learned counsel for the official respondents further submitted that in the application dated 12.5.2015 submitted by the applicant herein, has categorically stated that after demise of his mother Smt. Ranjanben in the year 1991, the applicant 10 OA No.343/2022 including his brother and sisters have been grown up by their Grandparents, and had not lived together with his father till he expired. After the death of mother of the applicant, the father of the applicant got remarried with respondent no.3, i.e., Labahuben and lived separately. Therefore, according to the learned counsel the applicant cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased Railway employee that too after the death of his mother Smt. Ranjnaben i.e. from the year 1991 i.e. more than 31 years.
5.5 Learned counsel for the official respondents also submitted that the principles governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground had been summarised as quoted above, and in the light of instructions issued by the Ministry of Railway/ Railway board from time to time on the subject, the reason assigned by the competent authority in the impugned order are just and proper which had already been communicated to the applicant vide letter dated 23.06.2021 and as such the applicant is not entitled for any relief in this case.
6. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicant has reiterated the contentions as stated in the OA. Additionally by relying upon the Order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Noor Mohammad B. vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2003 (2) SLJ 255 (CAT) would submits that the official respondents can obtain his undertaking to the effect that the in case the applicant does not support the family and act as bread winner his service will be liable to be terminated and as such the applicant is ready and willing to do so. Therefore, also the case of the applicant is required to be re-examined by the official respondents.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the records of the case.
8. It is noticed that this Tribunal while disposing of the earlier litigation, more particularly, the OA No.395/2016 filed by the applicant by 11 OA No.343/2022 considering the rival submissions including the objection raised by the private respondent no.3, i.e., second legally wedded wife of the father of the applicant herein, more particularly, no NOC had been issued by the said respondent no.3 in favour of the applicant for consideration of the claim for grant of appointment on compassionate ground, by common Order dated 5.9.2019 directed the official respondents to consider the case of the applicant herein for appointment on compassionate ground as per Rule/instructions which deals with the situation where NOC is not given by the widow of the deceased ex. Employee.
9. In compliance of the said direction, undisputedly the application of the applicant had been considered by the official respondents and vide speaking order dated 23.6.2021, the claim of the applicant had not been acceded by the official respondents, which is impugned in the present OA.
At this stage, we deem it appropriate to refer and reproduce the relevant extract of the said speaking order dated 23.6.2021 (impugned herein) for ready reference:-
"Western Railway No.E/CON/890/60/01/15/Misc. Divisional Office, Rajkot Dated 23.6.2021 To Shri Darshit B. Chauhan, ........ ........ ....... ...... ......
Speaking Orders "With reference to your application dated 19.03.2021 quoted above, and in ref. to the documents submitted along with the claim for employment on compassionate ground earlier it is hereby informed that your case has been put up to the competent authority i.e. DRM, who has passed following orders in the matter.
Hon'ble CAT-ADI vide judgment dated 05.09.2019 in OA Nos mentioned above at Ref. 1 has directed as follows in this matter.12 OA No.343/2022
"To consider the case of applicant Shri Darshit B. Chauhan for appointment on compassionate ground as per rules instructions which deals with the situation where NOC is not given by the widow of the deceased employee."
While giving the above direction, Hon'ble CAT has categorically mentioned non granting of NOC by the widow and dealing the case as per rules /instructions to deal such situation. There are no specific rules/instructions on compassionate ground which deals with the situation where NOC is not given by the surviving widow, who is otherwise the first preference for granting of CGA.
As regards the rule / instructions on the subject is concerned, it is stated that
1. As per RBE 22/2014, it has been instructed that "Further in the event of death of medically unfit employees without making clear his wishes, the first preference for appointment on compassionate ground should be that of spouse as done in the case of death".
In this case the surviving widow has not applied for CGA for herself.
2. As per RBE 70/2014, it has been instructed that "It should be left to the discretion of the family concerned in case of the death of the ex-employee to request for job either to spouse or any child (whether son or daughter unmarried/ married/ divorced/ widowed) subject to the condition that concerned child will be breadwinner of the family concerned."
In this case the family means the sons and daughters of first wife as well as surviving widow and it is more so because she is the first preference for the CGA as per extent rules/ instructions contained in RBE 22/2014. The denial of NOC by the surviving widow to Shri Darshit indicates non fulfilment of breadwinner requirement for the family. The name of surviving widow also not figures in the declaration furnished by Shri Darshit regarding looking after the family.
3. As per RBE 42/2018, it has been instructed that "It is the right of the legally wedded surviving widow to nominate breadwinner for the family and nomination should be in whose favor is specified in Para 5(a)"
In this case, the legally wedded surviving widow has not nominated Shri Darshit, as breadwinner for the family.
It is further stated that grant of NOC is an indirect affirmation that the candidate will be the 13 OA No.343/2022 breadwinner for the family. Non grant of NOC by the widow in this case indicates that she does not consider Shri Darshit as the breadwinner for the family. The extent rules are explicit in stating that the candidate should be breadwinner for the family. Further, declaration to be obtained from widow of deceased employee in this regards which includes statement that other members of the family will not claim employment in Railways on compassionate ground in future, which is also not given / signed by the widow, and Shri Darshit has written "Mother not alive" while signing on his part of declaration. Thus, the application for CGA suffers from this major deficiency.
Even if a condition of maintaining the surviving widow is kept while appointing, there is no clarity with the Administration as to what would constitute looking after / non looking after of surviving widow in this case.
Thus in the present situation wherein neither NOC is given by the person who has the first right for the job, nor nominated Shri Darshit as the breadwinner for the family and also not signed declaration to be signed by widow as required by the extant rules/ instructions mentioned above, compassionate ground appointment cannot be given to Shri Darshit as per extant rules.
This is for your information only."
10. It can be seen that while considering the claim of the applicant, the official respondents had categorically averred that there are no specific rules/instructions on compassionate ground which deals with the situation when NOC is not given by the surviving widow, who is otherwise the first preference for granting of compassionate ground appointment in terms of provisions of RBE 22/2014 and also recorded that as per the RBE 17/2014, discretion of the family concerned in case of death of the ex. employee to request for job either to spouse or any child subject to the condition that the said nomine/child will be breadwinner of the family concerned.
11 . Further the official respondents in the speaking order had recorded the finding. The denial of NOC by the surviving widow to Shri Darshit, i.e., applicant herein includes non fulfilment of 'breadwinner' 14 OA No.343/2022 requirement for the family. The applicant in his declaration submitted before the office has not mentioned the name of surviving widow and the manner in which he will look after the family.
11.1 It is also noticed that the official respondents by referring the instructions contained in RBE 14/2018 stated that it is the right of the legally wedded widow to nominate breadwinner for the family. The extent rules are explicit in stating that the candidate should be breadwinner for the family. Since the respondent no.3, i.e., legally wedded surviving widow of the father of the applicant who has first right to claim CG appointment, however, she had not applied for it but at the same time, had not given NOC in favour of the applicant herein nor she had filed any declaration which includes statement that other members of the family were not claim employment in Railways in future as stipulated in RBE 14/2018, the applicant had stated in his application that 'Mother is not alive". By considering the said material on record, the official respondents recorded the findings that the application for CG appointment suffers from major deficiency.
11.2 At this stage, it is also important to mention that in the speaking order, the official respondents have also considered the claim of the applicant by taking into consideration that even if a condition of maintaining the surviving widow is kept while appointing there is no clarity with the administration as to what would constitute looking after/ non looking after of surviving widow in this case and accordingly, the claim of the applicant had not been acceded to by the official respondents. It can be seen that the official respondents have considered the claim of the applicant by taking into consideration all the aspect and in the absence of met with the basic requisite that the applicant herein will be the breadwinner for the family of the deceased Railway employee to be declared by legally wedded surviving widow. Therefore, in absence of any material contrary to it, we do not find any legal infirmity in the findings 15 OA No.343/2022 recorded by the official respondents in not accepting the claim of the applicant vide speaking order which is impugned herein.
12. So far as the contention of the applicant that this Tribunal while deciding the aforementioned three cases had directed the official respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for grant of appointment on compassionate ground is concerned that too after considering the fact that the private respondent no.3 had declared that she is not intend to give her NOC in favour of the applicant. Therefore, the official respondents ought not to have rejected the claim of the applicant solely on that ground is concerned, in this regard, it can be seen that this Tribunal while disposing the previous OA filed by the applicant had only directed to the effect that "the respondents to consider the case of the applicant as per Rules/instructions which deals with the situation where NOC is not given by the widow of the deceased ex. Employee". In our considered view, the official respondents have considered the claim of the applicant accordingly in terms of policy in vogue for grant of compassionate ground in respect to the dependent family members of the deceased Railway employee as also by taking into consideration the situation that even if any undertaking be obtained from the applicant to look after the surviving widow and the family but there is no clarity available under the rules or instructions in this regard. Not only that the applicant had admitted that after the death of his father he stayed separately and subsequently his father married to respondent no.3 and the respondent No.3 also stayed separately since long. Under the circumstances there is no material on record that the applicant is solely dependent son of the said deceased Railway employee. It is further noticed that the official respondents were under obligation to consider the claim of the applicant for grant of CG appointment as per the rules/instructions which deals with the situation where NOC is not given by the widow of the deceased Railway employee which they have done while passing the order dated 23.6.2021 (Annexure 16 OA No.343/2022 A1). Therefore, also we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the official respondents in the impugned order.
13. It is reiterated that from the perusal of the his application dated 12.05.2015 (Annexure R-5 refer), the applicant himself stated therein that after his mother Smt. Ranjanben, expired on 11.5.1991, the applicant and all his brothers/sisters had been grown up by their grandparents, and were not living with their father. Subsequently, father of the applicant solemnised second marriage with respondent no.3 herein. Therefore, the applicant cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased Railway employee after the death of his mother Smt. Ranjanben, i.e. from the year 1991 i.e. more than about 31 years.
14. So far as reliance placed by the learned counsel for the applicant on the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Noor Mohammad (supra) is concerned, the said Order is not helpful to the applicant since in the said case the brother of the applicant therein namely Mohd. Idrish who was working in the Railways as Khalasi died while in service, the widow of said Shri Mohd. Idrish she was not inclined to seek appointment on compassionate ground and the applicant may be appointed as per the near relative clause in accordance with the circular of the Railway Board for providing the breadwinner to the family of the said deceased Govt. servant i.e. Mohd. Idrish. On such nomination by the legally wedded surviving widow of Govt. employee in favour of the applicant therein, i.e., Noor Mohammad (brother of late deceased Govt. employee), the Railway Authority had considered the claim and by obtaining the undertaking to look after the family members of the deceased Govt. employee Mohd. Idrish and had granted appointment on compassionate ground in favour of the said Noor Mohammad.
14.1 Subsequently, the said surviving widow had registered a complaint with the Railways authorities that the said Noor Mohammad had violated the terms and conditions of his 17 OA No.343/2022 undertaking and as such he is not looking after the family. On consideration of the said complaint, the Railway authorities terminated the services of the said Noor Mohammad.
14.2 Being aggrieved the OA filed and this Tribunal by considering the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in U.P. State Electricity Board vs. U.P. Bizali Karamcharisang and another (1998) SCC (L&S) 157, set aside the impugned termination order and respondents therein were directed to reinstate the applicant therein and 1/3 of the current wages should be deducted from the salary of the applicant and shall be paid to the family member of late Mohd. Idrish.
In the present case, the facts and circumstances as narrated herein above are distinguishable.
Suffice to state that in the relied upon case, i.e., Noor Mohammad (supra) the legally wedded surviving widow had nominated the near relative to be considered for grant of CG appointment and based on it the CG appointment was offered to the brother of deceased Govt. employee, whereas, in the present case same is not the situation.
14.3 As undisputedly, legally wedded surviving widow had first right to claim for CG appointment, but in the present case, as noted herein above neither the surviving widow applied for the CG appointment nor executed any nomination to be considered for appointment in favour of the applicant for CG appointment who can be a breadwinner for the family.
14.4 In our considered view, he object to consider the claim for grant of compassionate appointment in favour of other than surviving widow is that the said candidate should be the breadwinner for the 18 OA No.343/2022 dependent family member of the deceased Railway employee. The very said essence of the object is lacking in the present case.
Even otherwise in light of principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & Ors. vs. Anusree K.B. (supra), we do not find it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion and also keeping in view the guidelines as summarised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anusree K.B. (supra) in respect to grant of compassionate appointment to the dependent family member of the deceased Govt. employee, we do not find any legal infirmities in the findings recorded by the official respondents in the impugned order dated 23.6.2021. Thus, the OA lacks merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Hukum Singh Meena) (Jayesh V. Bhairavia)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ravi/