THE GENERAL MANAGER Vs. NITHYA MARTIN CHRISTIANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jayaraj, father of Nithya and Divya, was an employee in the Southern Railway. He died in harness. His widow is Dhanapushpam.

(2.) Nithya, the daughter of Jayaraj, made a claim for appointment in the Southern Railway under the compassionate employment scheme. That request was rejected. Thereafter, the widow of Jayaraj put forward a claim for Divya. That was also rejected. Divya also made a claim for compassionate employment. Meanwhile, Nithya made an application for re-considering her claim for compassionate employment. The General Manager of Southern Railway rejected that claim as per the order dated 15.3.2013 (Annexure A10). Nithya challenged the orders rejecting her claim for compassionate employment before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the orders passed by the Southern Railway and directed them to consider the request made by Nithya for appointment under the compassionate employment scheme. While doing so, the Tribunal imposed costs of 10,000/- each on the General Manager of Southern Railway and the Secretary (Establishment), Railway Board (Respondents 1 and 5 respectively before the Tribunal). The Central Administrative Tribunal also made several adverse remarks against the officials of the Railway while disposing of the Original Petition. The order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is challenged by the General Manager, Southern Railway and others, who are respondents 1 to 5 before the Tribunal.

(3.) At the time when Jayaraj was in service of the Railways, Nithya was married, but her relationship with her husband was not cordial. It would appear that Nithya was staying with her father as his dependant. Later, Nithya's husband filed a divorce petition before the Family Court, Palakkad. The Family Court dismissed that Original Petition, which was challenged by him in Mat. Appeal No. 741 of 2011 before this Court. Pending that Mat. Appeal, Nithya and her husband settled their disputes before the Mediation Centre and a mediated settlement agreement was arrived at. The Division Bench accepted that agreement holding cruelty as a ground for divorce. Certain observations were made in paragraph 5 of that judgment for justifying the passing of a decree of divorce. Nithya filed a Review Petition to expunge those remarks made in paragraph 5 of the judgment. The Division Bench allowed the Review Petition and paragraph 5 of the judgment was substituted by another paragraph.