Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Smt Urmila Devi vs North Eastern Railway on 15 April, 2025
OA No. 309 of 2023
(Reserved on 09.04.2025)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD.
Allahabad, this the 15th day of April, 2025.
Original Application No. 330/00309/2023
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative)
Smt. Urmila Devi, Wife of: Late Rajesh Kumar, Resident of: 161/212,
Tiwaripur, Kumhar Tola, Gorakhpur.
.....Applicant.
By Advocate : Shri Syed Fahim Ahmad
Shri Ramji Singh Patel
VERSUS
1. Divisional Railway Manager, North-East Railway, Gorakhpur.
2. General Manager (Personnel), Divisional Railway Manager Office,
North-East Railway, Gorakhpur.
....Respondents
By Advocate: Ms. Shikha Dixit
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative):
Shri Syed Fahim Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Shikha Dixit, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
2. By means of this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs :
"(i) To quash the order dated 28.02.2023 passed by respondent no. 3.
(ii) Issue order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith give appointment to the applicant on compassionate basis in place of her late Husband Rajesh Kumar under Dying-in-Harness Rules.
(iii) Any other order or direction to which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 1 of 6 OA No. 309 of 2023
3. The brief facts of the case are that the husband of the applicant namely Rajesh Kumar was working as Senior Clerk in N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur who died on 04.08.2021 while in service. The applicant filed application for compassionate appointment. The applicant is second wife of the deceased Rajesh Kumar married on 15.04.2007 after the death of first wife on 11.08.2004. The deceased Rajesh Kumar had two daughters and one son from his first wife, elder daughter Smt. Ritu Gupta is married. The son Ram Rekha Prasad was adopted by his Phupha, Ajay Gupta and later known as Rahul Gupta son of Ajay Gupta (Annexure -A-4 is photocopy of Aadhar of Mr. Rahul Gupta). The respondents rejected the application on 28.02.2023 on the ground that the applicant is not legally wedded wife of late Rajesh Kumar.
4. Heard the rival submissions.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned order dated 28.02.2023 is illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law as the applicant was first married to Mr. Rajesh Madhesiya, who has filed separate affidavit before respondent No.3 that they had already been separated just after one year of their marriage with mutual consent. The same has not been considered by the respondents. Late Rajesh Kumar also sought permission from his superior officer in letter dated 13.04.2007 for performance of second marriage of the applicant (Annexure- A-7). The Gram Pradhan has given certificate that the applicant has been separated from the Rajesh Madhesiya by mutual consent since 2004 and Rajesh Madhesiya has also re-married. Although, there is no legal divorce of the applicant before marriage to late Rajesh Kumar but they have been separated by mutual consent and by indulgence of village elders and Panchayat. On the basis of above RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 2 of 6 OA No. 309 of 2023 consideration, she has requested to allow this OA and directed the respondents to offer the appointment to the applicant on compassionate ground.
6. The respondents have strongly refuted the claim of the applicant by filing a detailed counter affidavit and have submitted that the applicant does not have any valid legal record to show that she had got divorce from the ex husband Rajesh Madhesiya and thereafter only she got married with late Rajesh Kumar. As the applicant has not produced any valid legal documents to show that her marriage with the deceased Rajesh Kumar was solemnised only after legal divorce from her ex-husband the marriage of the applicant with late Rajesh Kumar is not a valid marriage and hence she is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground after the death of late Rajesh Kumar. On the basis of above submissions, learned counsel for the respondents has requested to dismiss the OA as devoid of merit.
7. In rejoinder affidavit, the applicant has reiterated the same facts as given in the OA and added that now the divorce has been legally validated vide order dated 08.04.2024 of न्यायाऱय प्रधान न्यायाधीश, ऩररवार न्यायाऱय दे वररया। उऩस्थित-बद्री ववशाऱ ऩाण्डेय ( एच० जे०. एस०) वववाह ववच्छे द याचचका सं०-766/2023 अन्तर्गत धारा-13 (A) हहन्द ू वववाह अचधननयम 1955. The relevant part of the order is reproduced as below :-
"तद्नुसार वििाह विच्छे द याचिका सं०-766/2023 ऊर्मिऱा दे िी बनाम राजेश मद्दे र्शया धारा 13 हहन्दू वििाह अचधननयमं 1955 के अन्तर्ित एकऩऺीय रूऩ से ननर्णीत ि डिक्री ककया जाता है और ननर्णिय की नतचि से दोनों ऩऺों के बीि सम्ऩन्न हुए वििाह को विच्छे हदत समझा जायेर्ा। ऩऺकार मुकदमा अऩना अऩना मुकदमा व्यय स्ियं िहन करें र्े। "RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 3 of 6 OA No. 309 of 2023
On the basis of above, she has now requested to direct the respondents to grant her job on compassionate ground.
8. The respondents has also filed the supplementary counter affidavit that divorce has been decreed by Hon'ble Court vide order dated 08.04.2024 in Application No. 766 of 2023 which is much after the date of their so called marriage and death of the deceased Rajesh Kumar, hence, that cannot be taken into account and on the basis of above discussions, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the OA is devoid of merit and should be dismissed.
9. Considered the rival submissions and verified the documents available on record.
10. The factual position of the OA is that the applicant got married with late Rajesh Kumar without legally getting separated from her first husband. Almost similar issue has been decided on 17.01.2017 by Delhi High Court in the case of Champa Devi Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi & ors. in which the issue of widow of late Hari Ram, ex-sweeper in GTB Hospital on the death of her husband applied for appointment on compassionate ground. In this Writ Petiton, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi have come to the following conclusion :-
"The Courts below have rightly held that the appellant/plaintiff cannot claim the status of a legally wedded wife of Sh.Hari Ram on the strength of alleged marriage dated 02nd June, 1990. The solemnisation of marriage thereafter on 02nd June, 1994 at Delhi and on 10th December, 1994 at the village of Sh. Hari Ram was also not proved by leading satisfactory evidence to this effect. Even the certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat and submitted to M.S., Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital contained the date of marriage to be 02nd June, 1990 with no reference to remarriage on 02nd June, 1994 or 10th December, 1994."RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 4 of 6 OA No. 309 of 2023
In the present case, the widow of late Hari Ram was married while the first wife of late Hari Ram was alive.
11. In the case of Smt. Vimla Devi Vs. State of U.P. & 04 others in Writ-A No.14003 of 2022, the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in their order dated 15.09.2022 have taken up the similar issue. In this case, the writ petitioner claims to be the second wife of late Manoj Kumar, who was working as Assistant Teacher in Janta Junior High School, Faridpur (Audhan) Newada, Distict Kaushambi who married late Manoj Kumar during the survival of first wife of late Manoj Kumar namely Smt. Pushpa Devi who was reported to be insane for many years and petitioner who happens to be the real younger sister of Smt. Pushpa Devi who was married to the late Manoj Kumar by the father of the petitioner.
12. The issue here alongwith other issues, whether the petitioner can claim compassionate appointment consequent to the death of Manoj Kumar as his second wife during the life time of the first wife and subsistence of first wife was decided in this Writ Petition and Hon'ble High Court have come to the following conclusion :-
"Likewise, the petitioner cannot be entitled to compassionate appointment on the demise of Manoj Kumar in harness. The claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is thus not tenable in law and does not merit consideration for the reasons stated herein before. Besides the Court on the perusal of the pleadings in the writ petition finds that though grounds and pleadings have been set up with regard to compassionate appointment but no relief in that regard has been claimed by the petitioner and the relief has been confined to quashing of the impugned orders and grant of family pension."
Here, in this OA also the case is just opposite of the above writ petitions decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad. RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 5 of 6 OA No. 309 of 2023
13. On the basis of above consideration, it is clear that while the applicant was legally not separated on the date of her marriage and married to late Rajesh Kumar and subsequently she get divorce by the District Court in favour of her to treat her first marriage null and void. Although, nobody has contested the present order of the District Court which might have attained finality but it is a fact that applicant was not legally separated at the time of her marriage with Rajesh Kumar from her first husband and hence on the basis of above case laws it is clear that she is not entitled for any benefit accruing after the demise of Mr. Rajesh Kumar. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 28.02.2023 issued by the competent authority amongst the respondents. The applicant has failed to establish her claim. The OA is devoid of merit and likely to be dismissed. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
14. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
(Mohan Pyare) Member(Administrative) RKM/ RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 6 of 6