UNION OF INDIA Vs. PANKAJ KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/Union of India has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the order dated 29.01.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT/ Tribunal) in O.A. No. 3424/2012 and the order in review being R.A. No. 188/2014 dated 10.10.2014. By the first order dated 29.01.2014, the Tribunal quashed the petitioners communication dated 09.05.2012 - rejecting the respondents application for compassionate appointment and directed the petitioner to consider the respondent/applicants case for grant of compassionate appointment under the scheme. By the second order dated 10.10.2014, the aforesaid review application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) THE respondent/applicants father Late Shri Suresh Chand Sharma died in harness on 15.08.2008. During his service, the respondent's father had two wives. The respondent/applicant is the son of the second wife. After the demise of his father, the applicant made an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 10.10.2008, followed by two reminders. The petitioner rejected the respondents application vide order dated 18.09.2009 on the ground that the deceased railway servant married the applicant's mother Smt. Vijaya Kumari without taking any permission from the petitioner. The petitioner further stated that the first wife of the deceased railway servant viz. Smt. Raj Kumari had also applied for appointment on compassionate grounds and her claim had to be considered.

(3.) THE petitioner, thereafter, passed the order dated 16.12.2010 rejecting the applicants claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that where a railway employee died in harness leaving more than one widow and their children, the settlement dues have to be shared by both the widows in terms of the Court orders, or otherwise on merits of each case. The petitioner also stated that so far as appointment on compassionate ground to the second widow and/or her children is concerned, the same could not be considered unless the administration had permitted the second marriage in special circumstances taking into account the personal law, etc. The petitioner further stated that in the case of the applicant's father, no such permission had been granted and, therefore, the second marriage with the applicant's mother had not been recognized.