Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Smt Geeta vs Railway Recruitment Board on 31 August, 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
i-ln\-tt
Orders reserved on : 28.08.2017
t
Orders pronounced on : 3J_.08.2017
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Gupta, Member (J)
0. A. No.330/01754/2015
Smt. Geeta Wife of late Naresh resident of Village Ashiskpura
Manjra, Ajampur Tehsil Dhanora District Amroha.
......... ..... . Applicant
(By Advocate : Shri Pravesh Kumar Pandey)
Versus
1. Union of India through its Chairman Railway Board, Rail
Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Divisional General Manager, Railway Moradabad Mandal
Moradabad.
3. Mahesh Chandra son of Late Hari Chand resident of
Village Ashiskpura Manjra, Ajampur Tehsil Dhanora
District Amroha.
. ............ .. Respondents
(By Advocate : Shri Anil Kumar)
ORDER
The Applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
"i) Quash the impugned order dated 24.09.2015 passed by respondent no.2 thereby rejecting the representation dated 10.01.2015 and 14.08.2015 made by the applicant.2
OA 1754/201S
ii) Issue interim mandamus direct the respondent no.2 to appoint the petitioner under dying-in- harness rules on the place of her father-in-law.
iii) Issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.
iv) Award cost of the original application to the applicant."
2· The brief facts of the case emerging from the OA are that the applicant is the wife of Shri Narendra Kumar, who was the son of Shri Harl Chand and that during the lifetime of Sri Hari Chand, his son Narendra Kumar, who is the husband of the applicant expired and Shri Harl Chand, who is the father-in-law of the applicant, has cared the applicant after the death of Narendra Kumar and Shri Harl Chand has opened a joint account along with the applicant. 2.1 However, father-in-law of the applicant cared the applicant but other family members had been mentally torturing the applicant due to which the father-in-law of the applicant has started living separately with the applicant and he has also executed a deed wherein he has promised that-he would care the applicant and her children during his lifetime. 2.2 The father-in-law was the employee of the Railway Department and was posted at Hapur District, where he unfortunately met with an accident and expired on 6.12.2014. The family members of the applicant which consists of two baby girls, are totally dependent upon the 3 OA 1754/2015 fafuer-in-lawand after expiry of her father-in-law, the applicant and her family members are facing huge and economical crises.
th 2 ,3 The applicant also moved a representation before e opposite party no.2 on 10.1.2015 and reminder by way of another representation moved before the respondent no.2. 2.4 When the respondents have not taken any decision on the same, the applicant has filed OA 498/2015 and vide Order dated 31.7.2015, the Tribunal directed the respondent no.2 to decide the representation of the applicant in accordance with the law.
2.5 Thereafter without considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents have illegally rejected the representation of the applicarit vide impugned order dated 24.9.2015.
2.6 Since the order passed by the respondents was illegal, arbitrary and unjust, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and this OA has been preferred to quashing of the said impugned order.
3. Notices were issued to the respondents who in tum filed their short counter affidavit stating therein that Shri Hari Chand expired on 6.12.2014 and after his death, his widow, namely, Smt. Kishna Devi has applied for appointment on compassionate ground for her younger son. namelv. 8hri Mahesh Chand, who was granted compassionate appointment on the basis of his educational qualification. 3.1 Further it is stated that late Hari Chand has given declaration that there are only two married sons, namely, Shri Surendra Singh and Shri Mahesh Chand and one married daughter of late Shri Hari Chand. There is nothing on record of the applicant, who is stating her to be daughter-in- law of late Hari Chand and wife of Shri Narendra Kumar, whO has expired on 9.3.201 L However, wife of deceased RaiJway employee has given her consent in favour of Mahesh Chand, Accordingly, he was granted compassionate appointment as per the extent rules and policy.
4. Heard Shri Pravesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material placed on record.
5. Counsel for the applicant reiterated the facts as stated by him in the OA and submitted that the applicant being a an was entitled widow daughter-in-law of last Shri Harl Ch d . for compassionate appointment as the d eceased Govt. employee was also taking care of the app 1icant and her family members and as such the app1icant be given appointment on compassionate ground . H owever, while considering the c .
representation of the applicant, the respondents have failed to ons1der this aspect that th e applicant . was als O d upon the dee d ependent ease Govt . em p1oyee, namely ' Shri H an. Chand s OA 1754/2015 but th e respondents have given appointment to younger son of the deceased Govt. employee.
6. Counsel for the respondents submitted that as per the th prevailing policy, after the death of the Govt. employee on e basis of consent of the deceased Govt. employee's widow, her younger son, namely, Shri Mahesh Chand was given th appointment on compassionate appointment and as such e applicant, who is the daughter-in-law of the deceased Govt. employee cannot be given appointment on compassionate ground. As per the policy, only one member of the deceased Govt. employee can be given appointment on compassionate ground.
7. The Court is unable to accept the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. It is not disputed that the respondents on the basis of consent of wife of the deceased Govt. employee gave compassionate appointment to one of the sons, namely, Shri Mahesh Chand and it is also not disputed that only one member of the deceased Govt. employee can be given appointment on compassionate ground. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the applicant .be given appointment after terminating th e services .
of the younger son of the deceased Govt · emp1oyee, namely, Shri Mahesh Chand since Shri Mahesh Chand was given a ppomtment . . on the consent of th e d eceased Govt. employee's wife. The appl'icant h as also not denied th a t th e appomtment .
6OA 1754/2015 given to Shri Mahesh Chand was not on account of com passionate · .
app01ntment and she has completely failed to demonstrate that why the applicant should be given preference over Shri Mahesh Chand, younger son of the deceased Govt. employee. Since the respondents have already given appointment to one of the family members of the deceased Govt. employee, hence, there is no question of giving another appointment in favour of the applicant.
8. Further the Court has also gone through the impugned order passed by the respondents on the directions of the Tribunal passed in earlier OA and find that the respondents have passed a reasoned and speaking order citing all the provisions under which the compassionate appointment can be granted to younger son of the deceased Govt. employee. Accordingly, this Court has no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 24.9.2015.
9. In view of the above and for the foregoing reasons, the present OA lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.