UNION OF INDIA Vs. REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the Southern Railway, challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) made in O.A.No.141 of 2011 dated 16.3.2011, allowing the application filed by the second respondent herein, seeking to quash the order of the first petitioner dated 24.1.2011 and the consequential order of the third petitioner dated 29.1.2011.

(2.) The case of the second respondent before the Tribunal was that she was appointed on compassionate grounds by the first petitioner by considering the fact that her husband, third respondent herein was missing for more than seven years and as per Section 107 and 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, he was presumed to have died. The first petitioner appointed the second respondent as Grade-III Safaiwala by order dated 20.10.2009 subject to compliance of all the rules and regulations, including recruitment rules. The second respondent as widow of the third respondent, was paid the terminal benefits such as gratuity, leave salary on the presumption of death of the third respondent.

(3.) While the second respondent was serving as Safaiwala Grade-III, on 8.1.2011 the third respondent who served in the Railways, who was presumed to be died, sent a representation to the Southern Railway and requested for restoring him in service of the Railways. In view of the said representation from the third respondent, a show cause notice was issued to the second respondent on 5.1.2011, pursuant to which the second respondent submitted reply stating that the third respondent was not found from 6.10.2002 and she suffered a lot with her two children, of which one daughter aged 12 years is suffering from epilepsy; that she gave a complaint to the police after thorough search on 25.3.2003 and the police gave a certificate as not traceable and the said report was filed before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Tiruppathur, and the case was closed; that as the third respondent who is the husband of the second respondent was missing, she applied for compassionate appointment and the same was granted on 20.12.2009; that as per the investigation final report and as the third respondent could not be traced, she applied for compassionate appointment and hence there was no suppression of fact; that the third respondent did not meet the second respondent and he has not taken care of the second respondent and her two children; and that the application having been submitted with bona fide reason and not cheated the Railways, compassion must be shown to the second respondent to save the livelihood of herself and her two children, of which one is suffering with epilepsy. The third respondent deserted the second respondent till date and he is also not willing to take care of his family even in future.