Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Tanu Kumar vs North Central Railway on 22 December, 2025
1 (Reserved on 27.11.2025) Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad This the __22nd day of December, 2025 Hon'ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J) Original Application No. 322 of 2025 Tannu Kumar Son of Late Sunder Lal, Resident of Village Siriyawan Kala, Post Baregaon, Block Mooratganj, Police Station-Charwa, Kaushambi. Pargana and Tehsil-Chail, District-Kaushambi.
........... Applicant.
Applicant in person: Mr. Tannu Kumar.
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Central Railway, Subedarganj, Dhoomanganj, Allahabad.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, N.C.R. Nawab Yusuf Road, D.R.M. Office, Allahabad.
3. Chief Engineer, N.C.R. Allahabad.
4. Personnel Engineer, NCR Bharwari, District Kaushambi.
5. Ram Dulare, Son of Late Sundar Lal, Resident of Village-
Sakada, Muratganj, Kaushambi, Tehsil-Chail, District Kaushambi.
6. Smt. Revati Devi aged about 54 years, wife of Late Shiv Lochan.
7. Neetu Devi aged about 34 years, Daughter of Late Shiv Lochan.
8. Sarita, aged about 26 years, Daughter of Late Shiv Lochan.
9. Shivani, aged about 14 years, Daughter of Late Shiv Lochan.
SHAKUNTALA VERMA 2
10. Savita, aged about 13 years, Daughter of Late Shiv Lochan.
11. Karan, aged about 10 years, S/o Late Shiv Lochan.
Respondent No.6 to 11 Resident of Village-Badi Dhanni Muratganj, Tehsil-Chail, District-Kaushambi.
12. Suresh Kumar, son of Late Sundar Lal, Resident of Village Siriyawan Kala, Post-Budagaon, District- Kaushambi, Police Station-Charwa.
13. Sheela Devi, Daughter of Late Sundar Lal, Wife of Dilsukh, Resident of Village-Laxmanpur, Post-Myohar, Sarai Akhil, District-Kaushambi.
14. Heeramani, Daughter of Late Sundar Lal, wife of Shri Chandra Pal, Resident of Village-Faredpur, Sawaron Kari, District-Kaushambi.
........... Respondents By Advocate: Mr. Raj Kumar Singh.
Order The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for the following relief(s):-
"(i) this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 18.03.2025 with further direction to the respondents to consider the case of applicant for grant of compassionate appointment by taking NOC from actual legal heirs of Late Sundar Lal i.e. mother, brothers and Sisters of applicant as per rules prevailed at the time of death of father of applicant.
(ii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.
(iii) Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, Shri Tannu Kumar, is the son of late Sunder Lal who was working as Trackman at Bharwari Railway Station, District Kaushambi.
SHAKUNTALA VERMA 3 Late Sunder Lal died in harness on 05.09.2009. His widow Smt. Sukari Devi has been receiving family pension and the applicant's name is duly entered in the service records and Form-6 nomination. The applicant has passed Intermediate from U.P. Board and is eligible for appointment. The mother and other genuine heirs of late Sunder Lal have given No Objection Certificates in favour of the applicant (Annexure A-9). Earlier, O.A. No. 234/2013 was decided on 26.05.2016 holding that succession certificate is not required when nominee names exist in service records. Later, O.A. No. 547/2019 was disposed of on 30.08.2024 directing the respondents to decide the applicant's representation dated 15.04.2016 by a reasoned and speaking order. Pursuant thereto, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 18.03.2025 rejecting the claim of compassionate appointment on the ground that respondent nos. 5 to 12 had denied to grant NOC. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA.
3. The applicant in person submitted that he is the real son of late Sunder Lal from his relationship with Sukari Devi, his name is duly entered in service records, his mother is receiving family pension, and all genuine heirs of late Sunder Lal have given NOC in his favour. He argued that respondent nos. 6 to 11 are heirs of late Shiv Lochan and not of late Sunder Lal, hence their objection is irrelevant. He relied upon the order dated 26.05.2016 in O.A. No. 234/2013 and the judgment dated 27.03.2019 in Writ Petition No. 39960/2016 (Shiv Lochan & others vs Union of India) which clarified that Sukari Devi alone is entitled to death benefits of late Sunder Lal. He submitted that the impugned order dated 18.03.2025 is arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
SHAKUNTALA VERMA 4
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that late Sunder Lal had three relationships: first wife who died issueless, second with Sumitra Devi from whom Shiv Lochan and Suresh Kumar were born, and third with Sukari Devi from whom six children including the applicant were born. As per Railway Board's RBE No. 218/2019, children of second wife may also be considered for compassionate appointment, but only if first wife's heirs give NOC. Welfare Inspector's report dated 18.01.2025 recorded objections from Suresh Kumar opposing applicant's appointment. Counsel further argued that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but only to tide over immediate financial crisis, and since more than eleven years have elapsed since the death of the employee, the family crisis is presumed to have been overcome. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court judgment in Union of India vs V.R. Tripathi (2019) 14 SCC 646.
5. Heard Mr. Tanu Kumar, the applicant in person, and Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, and perused the material available on record.
6. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record, it is noted from the Registry report that notices to the private respondents have been duly served and no unserved notice has been received. Further, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the private respondents. Hence, it is presumed that they have no subsisting objection to the claim of the applicant.
7. It is further noted that respondent nos. 6 to 11 are heirs of late Shiv Lochan, who himself was born of Smt. Sumitra Devi, and therefore their objection is irrelevant in the SHAKUNTALA VERMA 5 present matter. The Hon'ble High Court in Shiv Lochan & others vs Union of India & others, Writ Petition No. 39960 of 2016, decided on 27.03.2019, has already clarified that Smt. Sukari Devi alone is entitled to the death benefits of late Sunder Lal. This Tribunal in O.A. No. 234/2013, decided on 26.05.2016, has also held that when the name of the heir is entered in the service record, succession certificate is not required. The Full Bench of this Tribunal in Smt. Geeta & others vs Union of India & others has further held that the nomination in Form-6 is decisive for family pension and post-retiral benefits.
8. On the other hand, reliance placed by the respondents on Union of India vs V.R. Tripathi (2019) 14 SCC 646 is distinguishable, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court therein clarified that Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot extend legitimacy to compassionate appointment, but also reiterated that compassionate appointment is to be considered in accordance with the scheme and rules in force. In the present case, Railway Board's RBE No. 218/2019 itself permits consideration of children from second marriage, subject to NOC from the heirs of the first wife. Here, the actual legal heirs of late Sunder Lal, namely his widow Smt. Sukari Devi and her children including the applicant, have already given No Objection Certificates (Annexure A-9). It is also recorded that respondent no. 12 Suresh Kumar has now given his consent, hence his objection no longer survives.
9. In light of the material on record, it is evident that the applicant's claim is supported by the actual legal heirs of late Sunder Lal. His widow Smt. Sukari Devi, her children including the applicant, and respondent no. 12 Suresh Kumar SHAKUNTALA VERMA 6 have all furnished their No Objection Certificates (Annexure A-9). Thus, the applicant's case is squarely covered by the settled legal position and fortified by the consent of all genuine heirs.
10. Accordingly, the Original Application deserves to be allowed. The impugned order dated 18.03.2025 is unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. I am of the opinion that the competent authority amongst the respondents is directed to reconsider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment strictly in terms of the observations made hereinabove, by taking into account only the No Objection Certificates of the other legal heirs of late Sunder Lal, namely his widow Smt. Sukari Devi, her children including the applicant, and respondent no. 12 Suresh Kumar. The objections of respondent nos. 6 to 11, being heirs of late Shiv Lochan, are irrelevant and shall not be insisted upon. The respondents shall pass appropriate orders on the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment within three months from the date of receipt of this judgment. No order as to costs.
11. All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.
(Rajnish Kumar Rai) Member (J) /Shakuntala/ SHAKUNTALA VERMA