Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Amandeep Gill vs M/O Railways on 9 October, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A.No. 060/1208/2023
Pronounced on : 30.10.2025
(Reserved on : 09.10.2025)
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
(Advocate: Sh. Dhruv Walia).
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)
(Advocate: Sh. A.K. Sharma, present through VC)
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: 2025.10.31 13:25:33+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
2
ORDER
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A):
1. This application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, whereby, the applicant has sought for the following relief:
i) That the impugned order dated 31.08.2010 (Annexure A/3) passed by the respondent-board, rejecting the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment on the ground of his disputed parentage, be quashed/set aside;
ii) That appropriate orders/directions be issued to the respondent-
authorities to consider and offer the applicant appointment in service of the Board, in accordance with the relevant policy/instructions governing compassionate appointment, along with all consequential benefits, from the date when the applicant/his mother had first represented/date the impugned order was passed, in the interest of justice."
2. The applicant in its OA has submitted the following:-
i) The applicant is the biological son of Late Sh. David Gill s/o Late Sh. R.M. Gill, who was employed as a Ticket Collector, with the Northern Railway at Bathinda and passed away on 29.03.2009, while 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 demise of 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 representations, the requisite procedure for processing the applicant's claim was initiated. Pertinently, said 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 Digitally signed by Satyanarayana i.e. the applicant. However, to the utter shock and dismay of the 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: 2025.10.31 13:25:33+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 3 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.
ii) It is submitted by the applicant that the applicant and his mother flatly refused to accede to the afore detailed illegal demand and requested the official (respondent no. 5) to consider their claim in accordance with law, Irked by their refusal, official (respondent no. 5) cleverly obtained thumb impression of the applicant's mother on blank sheets of paper under the garb of processing the claim under the guise that certain paperwork required the attestation of the applicant's mother but with the underlying malicious intent of illegally denying the claim on the wholly extraneous consideration of the applicant and his mother having refused to meet his illegal demand. Equipped with the blank documents containing Smt. Gian Kaur's thumb impression, he vindictively proceeded to fabricate a letter dated 04.06.2009, wherein she is alleged to have stated that the applicant is the son of one Jarnail Singh, who was her son from an earlier marriage with one Mal Singh.
Basing his enquiry on said letter/concession dated 04.06.2009, the official (respondent no. 5) presented a report dated 08.06.2009 to the competent authority stating that the applicant was not the biological son of the deceased employee (Sh. David Gill) and that the adoption of the applicant was not according to 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 (Annexures A-1 to 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= A-3).
053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de094 53dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, Vanapalli CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.31 13:25:33+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 4
iii) Further, the impugned order dated 31.08.2010 (Annexure A-3) was challenged by way of Civil Suit No.3953 of 2013 before the Learned Civil Courts, Bhatinda. On the basis of evidence adduced, that 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) (Annexures A-4 to A-10). The challenge was rejected by the Learned Trial Court vide it's judgment and decree dated 08.09.2015 (Annexure A/11) on the premise that in the absence of a birth certificate, the applicant had been unable to establish that he is the biological son of Late Sh. David Gill, besides, in the alternative having brought no material to establish a valid adoption, in furtherance of his claim. The Learned Trial Court arrived at the said conclusion by primarily relying on the alleged letter/concession dated 04.06.2009 (Annexure A-1).
iv) An appeal was preferred against the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2015 (Annexure A-11), 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 Paramjit Kaur sans any averment or material in support thereof. Pertinently, Smt. Paramjit Kaur was an official witness called by the applicant in the proceedings before the Learned Trial Court (Annexure A-12 & A-13). The judgment and decree dated 18.01.2017 (Annexure A-12) was 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 (Annexure A/14), wherein the Hon'ble Court afforded the applicant the liberty to agitate his claim before the Court of Competent Jurisdiction, 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= therefore the present application before this Learned Tribunal.
053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de094 53dd2ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, Vanapalli CN=Satyanarayana Vanapalli Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.31 13:25:33+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 5
3. Notice was issued to the respondents. The written statement has been submitted by the respondents wherein preliminary objection stating as follows:-
i) It is averred by the respondents that the applicant, Sh. Amandeep Gill, has filed the present OA, for claiming the appointment in Railway on compassionate ground. Ex. Railway employee Sh. David Gill while working as Ticket Examiner under SS/Bathinda, expired on 29.03.2009 due to natural death. After the death of Railway Employee, Smt. Gian Kaur (wife of Ex-Employee) has requested for appointment on compassionate ground in favor of Sh. Amandeep Gill. During the enquiry, it was revealed that Smt. Gian Kaur was earlier married with Sh. Mal Singh and she have three children from her First wed lock i.e. named i) Sh. Jarnail Singh (ii) Sh. Karnail Singh and iii) Smt. Manjeet.
Sh. Jarnail Singh (eldest son of Smt. Gain Kaur from her first marriage) died leaving behind three children and out of whom, Sh. Amandeep Gill (present applicant) is one of them as mention in her application (Annexure R-1) under witness of her Son Sh. Karnail Singh S/o Sh. Mal Singh. Therefore, Sh. Amandeep Gill is related to Smt. Gian Kaur as her Grandson.
ii) The applicant is the grandson of Smt. Gian Kaur. It is further submitted that as per record applicant has not been adopted by Sh. David Gill (Ex-employee). Smt. Gian Kaur could not adopt, her grandson and it is also submitted that her son Sh. Karnail Singh is also alive. On an earlier occasion, applicant filed a civil suit CIS No. 3953/2013 case before Hon'ble Civil Judge Junior Division, Bathinda for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff being the real son of Sh. David Gill (Ex-employee) is entitled to be posted on Compassionate Grounds, Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli Satyanar DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE which was dismissed with cost vide judgment dated 08.09.2015 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: 2025.10.31 13:25:33+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 6 (Annexure A-11). Further, the applicant filed an appeal challenging the order dated 08.09.2015 before the Hon'ble court of Sh. Kanwaljit Singh Bajwa, Addl. District Judge, Bathinda vide CIS No. 339/2015 which has also been dismissed with cost on 18.01.2017.
iii) Further, it is averred by the respondents in the reply that the applicant has filed an Appeal before Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide RSA No. 4857/2017 against the order dated 18.01.2017 which has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Court vide orders dated 02.05.2023. As the applicant has not been adopted by the Ex-employee and mother of applicant could not adopt her own grandson as per the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
4. The applicant has filed certain documents through MA No.2250/2025 i.e. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Annexure A/11), Government of Punjab, Department of Health and Family Notification dated 21.04.2004 (Annexure A/12).
5. The applicant has submitted following Judgments in support of his arguments are as follows:-
i) Bharat Kumar Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd, reported in 2025 NCRJ-JD 12990.
ii) Central Bank Vs. Ajithkumar G.K., reported in 2025 INSC
184.
iii) Chhindo Vs. Mel Singh & Ors. reported in 1967 (2) ILR (Punjab) 6.
iv) Shreejith L Vs. Deputy Director (Education) Kerala & Ors., in Civil Appeal No.4848/2012 (SC), decided on 03.07.2012.
v) Akshita Singh Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors., reported in 2014 (1) PLR 387.
Digitally signed by SatyanarayanaVanapalli 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: 2025.10.31 13:25:33+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 7
vi) C.S. Rowjee represented by Power of Attorney holder Sri C. Apparao Rowjee & Ors. Vs. State of A.P., reported in 1964 (6) SCR
330.
vii) Deb Kumar Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors., in W.P.S.T. No.67 of 2019, decided on 22.07.2019.
viii) S.P. Changalvaraya Naidu (dead) by Lrs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by LRs., reported in 1994 (1) LW 21.
6. Heard both the counsels and have gone through the pleadings and averments made in this case.
7. The main question in this case is whether the applicant is entitled for appointment on the compassionate ground being biological/adopted son of the deceased employee Sh. David Gill. As per the facts stated by the appellants/respondents in pleadings/written statement is:-
The applicant has filed an Appeal before Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide RSA No.4857/2017 against the order dated 18.01.2017 which has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Court vide orders dated 02.05.2023 with the direction that:
"........Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the appellant submits that though, there is a challenge to the judgment of the lower Appellate Court in the present appeal and keeping in view the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, the present Regular Second Appeal may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed any further with liberty to the appellant to raise his claim before the appropriate forum i.e. Central Administrative Tribunal and the question of law may be kept open.
Ordered accordingly."
Till date no competent court has adjudicated upon the validity of the adoption deed. In such circumstances as per the facts presented 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: 2025.10.31 13:25:33+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 8 and agitated, it is clear that the applicant is not a biological son of the deceased as prayed by him in his OA.
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.
(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: 2025.10.31 13:25:33+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0