Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Vijayabhavanam Lijo John vs M/O Railways on 25 June, 2018
e-yhf
TRIBUNAL
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
HYDERABAD BENCH
HYDERABAD
o. A. No. 02110 067 6, 2011
Date of order: 15 o6'2018'
8'
Date of CAV: 1 3'06'20
1
i
Between
s/o Daniel John
Viiavabhavanam Lijo John' -)
ffi,ffi t';;*,:;,lnl x a*I):
" ... APPlicant
Telarrgana-5}7 203'
And
bv its
1. The Union of lndia' reP"
' il;;"",;ePt' orRailwaYs' New Delhi'
2. The South Central
Railway' rep'' by its
" a;;a;,tral Manager' Rail NilaYam'
Secunderabad'
Manager'
3. The Divisional Railwav
' i.ril'C""tral Railway' SanchalanBhavan'
ilii Nil;' iecunderabad-soo 025'
Personal Officer'
4. The Senior Divisional
- Nilayam'
i"",fr 6""rtal Railway, Rail
Secunderabad-500 025'
Offrcer'
- The Chief Personal
5.
RailwaY' Rail NilaYam'
i""tf, C*nal
Secunderabad-sO0 025'
6. Smt.Minimole, w/o
Daniel John'
-
maior, Occ:Housewife'
"""a
if-orr. r" Akshara Chit Funds' 203' ... ResPondents
;;Jf#;Mandal' Khammam-507
Counsel for the Applicant '""Mrlvl 'V'Venu'
the ResponOtnt' ' Mrs'A'Plakshmi' SC for Rlys'
"
Counsel for for R-6
... Ut.f'R'f'V'Prasad
MEM BER (JUDL')
ffio*, ur,E MR.JusrIcE R'KANrrlsLo'
MEMBER (ADMN.)
THE HON,BLE MRS.IdIN;IE T,UT TNW
4,
a
,'
2
F
ORDER
{As per Hon'ble Mrs.Minnie Mat hew, Member (Admn ) ] The applicant is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not considering him for compassionate appointment and proceeding to appoint the 6th respondent under the scheme of compassionate appointment' to the first
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is the elder son born wife of shri Daniel John. shri Daniel John, who was a carpenter under ssE/sig/MDR' late sri Daniel John had died on 20!42015 while in service. During his life time, the re-married the 6th respondent after the death of his first wife. The applicant contends the 6th respondent came that after the death of his father, he, his younger brother and toanunderstandingaccordingtowhichhewouldforegothefamilybenefitsofhis getting the benefit of compassionate father in favour of the 6rh respondent in lieu of appointment.Accordingly,heexecutedanaffidavitalongwithhisyoungerbrotheron of PF' Gratuity and CGIS to the 03.07.2015 conveying his no objection to the release 6th respondent. After having received the no objection from him and his brother' the 6rh appointment started creating respondent with a view to grabbing the compassionate problemsinthefamilyandappliedforcompassionateappointmentingrossviolationof thefamilysettlementinwhichsheherselfhadgivenhimaNoCforcompassionate appointment.Assuch,healsoexecutedanotheraffidavitwithdrawingtheNoC,given byhimtothe6threspondentwithregardtotheterminalbenefitsandintimatedthe3,d respondentaccordingly.ltissubmittedbytheapplicantthatthe6threspondentafter for compassionate appointment also She has taking all the terminal benefits applied and may be given appointment letter by the already undergone medical examination submitted a representation dated 22'05'2017 lo lhe respondents. The applicant had appointment However' they have not respondents requesting for compassionate considered his request fl) 3 3 {, t #$ x3j ?
that as the elder son of the deceased employee'
3. lt is the case of the applicant heisentitledforcompassionateappointmentandthatthe6.hrespondenthasnoright by her. The respondents are ignoring the family settlement in view of the Noc given issue compassionate the 6th respondent and are trying to between the applicant and is illegal The applicant' therefore' seeks a appointment to the 6tn respondent' which declarationthattheactionoftherespondentsinignoringhisclaimforcompassionate 1 to 5 to issue a direction to the respondents appointment is illegal and also prays for of compassionate appointment' favour under the scheme appointment orders in his statement stating that the late Sri filed a reply
4. The respondents 1 to 5 have DanielJohnhadmarriedthe6threspondentafterthedeathofhisfirstwifeandhad takenpostfactopermissionforre-marriagefromtheadministration.Consequentupon for widow and the 6th respondent herein requested his his death on 20'05'2015' step son and the applicant herein on compassionate of her appointment in favour a lnspector who enquired into the matter submitted grounds' The Staff and Welfare called Anjali Devi and was having a relationship with a lady report that the applicant thereareSomedisputesinthefamilyandthatthesaidAnjaliDevilodgedanFlRin and also submitted a complaint to the Divisional Railway Madhira Police Station the 6th respondent submitted another Manager on 09'07'2015' ln the meanwhile' appointment in her favour' The competent application requesting for compassionate it as a fit case to recommend to the authority examined the case and considered beyond 35 years since the 6th Headquarters for obtaining upper age relaxation age of education of her son' Accordingly' the upper respondent had the liability relaxationwasgivenforconsideringherforappointmentinGroup.Ccategorysubject tosuitability'However'whenshewassubjectedtoGroup-Ctest'shewasfound ........4 t!ffi 4 'd [W d.up-o post. Thereupon, the 6th the erstwhite unsuitable and was therefore offered respondentsubmittedafurtherrepresentationdated30.03.20lTrequestingforgrant in the Group-c test and to grant her two months time of a second chance to re-appear forpreparationintheexaminationandtoallowhertoappearfortheexaminationin representation was received from the aPPlicant on July 2017 ' At this juncture' a that as per the family settlement between him and 22.05.2017,wherein it was stated on to give no obiection certificate for his appointment his step mother, she had agreed collecting all the terminal benefits' compassionate grounds after as per the extant rules' in the event of death of a
5. The respondents submit that by his/her spouse' the spouse is at liberty to seek serving employee, who is survived or any dependent ward ln the instant case' the 6th appointment in favour of herself of late Sri Daniel John' submitted an respondent, who is the legally wedded wife case of appointment in the Railways on compassionate affidavit declaring that in grounds,shewilllookafterallthethreesonsincludingtheapplicant.Therespondents alsopointoutthattheyarenotconcernedwiththedisputesorsettlementamongthe familymembersandhavetoexaminethecasebasedontheextantinstructions/rules.
The6threspondent,wholosttrustinherstepsonandtheapplicanthereinhad in her favour' The compassionate ground appointment submitted another request for for compassionate appointment conforms to the request of the 6th respondents on receipt of the request of the widow and after provisions of the scheme. Therefore, granted approval for aPPointment on due inquiry, the competent authority to obtain comPassionate grounds to the widow. Further' there is no Provision consenUwillingness from theotherfamilymembersforprocessingthecasefor is the sole representative of the comPassionate ground appointment. The widow 5 5 E j '.o, .J seek appointment in favour of herself or entitled to deceased employee, who is anothertrustedeligibleward.lnviewofthis,thereisnoillegalityinconsideringthe6th has failed to establish a case' respondent and the applicant a separate affidavit denying the averment of the
6. The 6h respondent has filed clear understanding in the form of an affidavit dated applicant that there was a has ever been reached between family 18.05.2015. She states that no understanding membersnorbetweentheapplicantandherself.Theapplicantsubmittedafalse affidavitforthepurposeofthepresentOAFurther'thisaffidavitcontainsonlythe signatureoftheapplicant.Shealsosubmitsthattheapplicantpreparedanotherfalse the signature of his brother, who is employed in forging affidavit on 03.07.2015 dated 04 09'2017 of Sri Lino John' brother Bangalore' She also produced an affidavit oftheapplicantinwhichhehasaffirmedthathehasnotsignedanyaffidavitdated by the applicant before this Tribunal Thus' the 03.07.2015, which has been produced applicanthasfabricateddocumentstomisleadthisCourt,The6threspondentalso that the misguided by one Mr.Basha, a welfare lnspector' submits that she was any benefits. lt was in these circumstances that she for second wife is not entifled submittedaNoobjectionCertificateinitially.However,shewithdrewtheNoobjection the wife of the deceased Railway employee' she is Certificate after knowing that as the affidavit appointment. She also points out that even entired for compassionate datedlS.0g.20l5containedonlythesignatureoftheapplicantandwasunilatera|ly it carries no weight' As the legally wedded wife of prepared by the applicant As such' ' thedeceasedRailwayemployeeshehasanoverridingrightandtheapplicantcannot putupanyclaimwithoutherconsent.Further,herrequestforcompassionate appointmentissupportedbyrules.ShealsoStatesthatshereceivedthelegitimate ........6 6 v !, ,l not misrepresent or distort any facts' Further, the dues of her late husband and did her and will not take care of her or her younger son applicant had already deserted given to him She also states that on account of the if compassionate appointment is pendencyoftheOA,theadministrationhasnotcalledherforthetestforappointment to a GrouP-C Post' Heard the learned counsel for the parties' 7 Appricant also submitted written arguments g. The rearned counsel for the and his brother gave No Objection to forego the PF' reiterating that the applicant of the 6th respondent and that the 6rh respondent had Gratuity and CGIS in favour the for compassionate appointment to the applicant Further' given her No Objection 6threspondentisworkingasTeacher'whereastheapplicantisjoblessandekingout No Thus' when the 6th respondent has given her his livelihood with a meagre income all the monetary benefits as per the understanding Objection and has received claim compassionate appointment for herself' The between them, she cannot against the 6th Madhira Town Police Station applicant has given a complaint to the respondentforcheatinghim.Thereareseveralinstanceswherecompassionate As per the said settlement only the appointments are given as per family settlements 6threspondentgaveherNoobjectioninfavouroftheapplicant.Further'thebalanceof son of the deceased is in favour of the applicant as he is the legitimate convenience employee'Healsoproducedacopyoftheletterdated20.05'20l5submittedbythe6th respondentgivingherNoobjectiontotheappointmentoncompassionategroundsto her stePson Sri Lijo John' ......7 ru) 't t [- ry;
7f.% \a in this OA is as to whether the applicant'
9. The short question for consideration whoistheSonborntothefirstwifeofthedeceasedRaitwayemployeehasabetter claimthanthewidowofthedeceasedRailwayemployeeforappointmenton comPassionate grounds' applicant are that there was a family grounds advanced by the
10. The main settlementaccordingtowhichtheapplicantwouldforegotheterminalbenefitsandthe appointment Certificate for compassionate 6,h respondent would give her No Objection infavouroftheapplicant.Asrightlyobservedbytheofficialrespondents,thefamily has no binding force on them and settlement purported to have been made based on the extant rules' Further' the has to be made compassionate appointment socalledfamilysettlementisnothingbutanaffidavitdatedlS.o5.2ol5signedbythe applicanthimselfanddoesnotbearthesignatureofthe6threspondentnoranyother familymember.Thefurtheraffidavitdated03.0T.20,l5purportedtohavebeensworn by Sri Lino John Lino John has been denied by the applicant and his younger brother inanafijdavitdatedo4.og.2olT.Aspertherulesinforce,thefirstrightofbeing legally wedded with the appointment is vested considered for compassionate ground survivingwidow'provided'shehasnotre-marriedatthetimeofmakingrequestfor not in dispute grounds ln the instant case' it is appointment on compassionate employee' of the deceased Railway 6rh respondent is the legally wedded wife that the only with the 6th respondent' lt Therefore, the flrst right of appointment vests isonlywherewhenthelegallyweddedsurvivingwidowdoesnotwantherselftobe she can nominate a breadwinner appointment' considered for compassionate adopted among sons or daughters including for the family from son/widowed/adopted/married/divorceddaughters.Thus,therulepositionisclearthat '...'..,8 a the surviving widow has the first right for consideration. Even though the 6th respondent had initially given her Noc in favour of the applicant, she has subsequently withdrawn the same as she had lost trust in the applicant and submitted another application requesting for compassionate ground appointment in favour of for herself. The respondents cannot be faulted for having processed the application compassionate appointment in favour of the 6th respondent who has the first right to given to the applicant.
compassionate appointment and who had withdrawn the NOC has 11 ' Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, we hold that the applicant failed to establish his case for compassionate appointment.
The oA is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed' No order as to costs' sqFril rTa cERTlf lo rRuE SOPt i.f Cl:;" i:u.di[R OA,'..6.7.6 l,-, t o tzJ Ul:'g,il'i{ ,aslLll 2 ar tlrn 0 ,Yh*/t I )g i 1;-A0Y g N I ,r +"ir':r,?
.*rai;+, tr -qfficdr
,r rt{irtsrt'
i$ri'?; r rriv*',-Wr:".rA,.tnal ,::t';* Adnt ::E n16 q+ff l,llYdaraLaC E:ncr