BASANTI KUMARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench (Circuit Sitting at Ranchi) in O.A. No. 24 of 2008 order dated 25th June, 2008, whereby, the application preferred by this petitioner for getting compassionate appointment because of death of her father, was rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal, confirming the order passed by the railway authority and, hence, this writ petition has been preferred by the original applicant.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the father of this petitioner was in the railway service with the respondents and he expired on 21st June, 1999 and, thereafter, second wife of the father of this petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, which was rejected by the respondents on 21st September, 1999. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that thereafter daughter of the second wife of the deceased employee i.e. the present petitioner applied for the compassionate appointment in the year 2005. This application was also rejected by the respondents on 22nd June, 2007 mainly on the ground that the petitioner cannot adopted by the first wife of the deceased employee. Moreover on the basis of one circular and Rule 21 of the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter to be referred as the Rules, 1966), the Central Administrative Tribunal has not accepted the Original Application preferred by this petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a daughter of the deceased employee and she has applied much earlier in point of time. She was dependent upon her deceased father. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Moreover, neither the first wife nor the second wife of the deceased employee was appointed on the compassionate ground nor this petitioner, who is daughter of the deceased employee, has been appointed by the railway authority. These aspects of the matter were not properly appreciated by the Central Administrative Tribunal and, hence, the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 24 of 2008 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in view of the provisions of Rule 21 of the Rules, 1966, second marriage could not have been solemnized by the employee of the railway without proper permission of the railway authorities and, therefore, as per circular dated 24 th January, 1992, which is annexed with the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, no compassionate appointment can be given to the second wife or her children. This petitioner is the daughter of the second wife of the deceased employee and, hence, she is not entitled to get any compassionate appointment. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Rule 21 of the Rules, 1966 is not under challenge and, therefore, this writ petition may not be entertained by this Court.