Jharkhand High Court
Basanti Kumari vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 April, 2015
Author: D.N. Patel
Bench: D. N. Patel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 4993 of 2008
Basanti Kumari, daughter of Late Khirua (Mahto), resident of Village
Kasmakura, P.O. Jamtara, P.S. Dumri, District Giridih ... Petitioner
Versus
1.Union of India, through the General Manager of EastCentral Railway, Hajipur
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, EastCentral Railway, Dhanbad Division, Dhanbad
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, EastCentral Railway, Dhanbad Division, Dhanbad
4. The Chief Personnel Officer, EastCentral Railway, Hajipur ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Mahto, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ram Nivas Roy, Advocate 04/ Dated: 15 April, 2015 th Oral Order Per D.N. Patel, J.:
1. This writ petition has been preferred challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench (Circuit Sitting at Ranchi) in O.A. No. 24 of 2008 order dated 25th June, 2008, whereby, the application preferred by this petitioner for getting compassionate appointment because of death of her father, was rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal, confirming the order passed by the railway authority and, hence, this writ petition has been preferred by the original applicant.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the father of this petitioner was in the railway service with the respondents and he expired on 21st June, 1999 and, thereafter, second wife of the father of this petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, which was rejected by the respondents on 21st September, 1999. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that thereafter daughter of the second wife of the deceased employee i.e. the present petitioner applied for the compassionate appointment in the year 2005. This application was also rejected by the respondents on 22nd June, 2 2007 mainly on the ground that the petitioner cannot adopted by the first wife of the deceased employee. Moreover on the basis of one circular and Rule 21 of the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter to be referred as the Rules, 1966), the Central Administrative Tribunal has not accepted the Original Application preferred by this petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a daughter of the deceased employee and she has applied much earlier in point of time. She was dependent upon her deceased father. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Moreover, neither the first wife nor the second wife of the deceased employee was appointed on the compassionate ground nor this petitioner, who is daughter of the deceased employee, has been appointed by the railway authority. These aspects of the matter were not properly appreciated by the Central Administrative Tribunal and, hence, the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 24 of 2008 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in view of the provisions of Rule 21 of the Rules, 1966, second marriage could not have been solemnized by the employee of the railway without proper permission of the railway authorities and, therefore, as per circular dated 24th January, 1992, which is annexed with the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, no compassionate appointment can be given to the second wife or her children. This petitioner is the daughter of the second wife of the deceased employee and, hence, she is not entitled to get any compassionate appointment. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Rule 21 of the Rules, 1966 is not under challenge and, therefore, this writ petition may not be entertained by this Court.
3
4. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons:
(i) The petitioner is the daughter of the deceased employee of the railway authority. The father of this petitioner expired on 21st June, 1999. The father of the petitioner was working as ClassIV employee with the respondents.
(ii) It appears from the facts of the case that deceased employee had more than one wives. Rule 21 of the Rules, 1966 reads as under:
"21. Restriction Regarding Marriage (1) No railway servant shall enter or contract, a marriage with a person having a spouse living and, (2) No railway servant, having a spouse living shall enter into or contract, marriage with any person.
(3) A railway servant who has married or marries a person other than of Indian Nationality shall forthwith intimate the act to the Government. Provided that the Government may permit a railway servant to enter into, or contract, such marriage as is referred to in clause (1) or clause (2) if it is satisfied
(a) such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to such railway servant and the other party to the marriage; and
(b) there are other grounds for so doing."
In view of the aforesaid Rule 21 of the Rules, 1966, if the employee of the railway wants second marriage during existence of first wife, then the permission of the railway authority is a must. On the basis of this Rule, a circular has been issued on 24th January, 1992 which is annexed as Annexure R1 to the counter affidavit, wherein, it is stated that in case of second wife without permission of the railway authorities if the employee expires, neither second wife nor her children will get compassionate appointment.
(iii) Upon conjoint reading of Rule 21 of the Rules, 1966 and the circular issued by the Railway Board dated 24th January, 1992, this petitioner being the daughter of the second wife of the deceased 4 employee, is not entitled to get compassionate appointment. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the Central Administrative Tribunal while dismissing the Original Application preferred by this petitioner.
(iv) Even otherwise also, this petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment in the year 2005, whereas, death of her father had taken place in the year 1999. There is long time gap between these two events. The very purpose of compassionate appointment had been frustrated by the time, this petitioner preferred application for compassionate appointment.
5. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, no error has been committed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in dismissing the O.A. No. 24 of 2008 vide order dated 25th June, 2008, which is at Annexure5 to the memo of this writ petition. We see no reason to take any other view than what is taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench (Circuit Sitting at Ranchi). There being no substance in this writ petition and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.
(D.N. Patel, J.) (Pramath Patnaik, J.) Ajay/