UNION OF INDIA Vs. MD. FARID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the respondent.

(2.) Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench at Ranchi by order dated 11th May, 2009 passed in O. A. No. 66 of 2009 has quashed the order dated 22nd July, 2008 issued by Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Dhanbad Division, Dhanbad refusing to consider the case of the applicant/respondent herein for compassionate appointment. Petitioner-Railways had refused to consider the case of the applicant solely on the ground that he is the son of the ex-employee's second wife. It relied upon the circular dated 2nd Feb., 1992 of Railway-Board, where under such a child born out of second marriage of the employee are not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. Learned Tribunal has remitted the matter to the respondent-Senior Divisional Personnel Officer to reconsider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment on its own merit by passing a speaking order.

(3.) It is pertinent to mention here that the very issue of compassionate appointment under the Railways to the dependent son born out of second marriage of an employee dying in harness was under consideration in the case of Union of India Vs. Suraj Kumar PrasadOrs. with analogous case by Full Bench of this Court. The following question was referred for consideration before the Full Bench:" Whether the Union of India/Railway Board can use Circular No. 1 of 1992, dated 2nd Jan., 1992 arising out of Rule 21 of Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966 in similar matters, after it being quashed by Honourable Calcutta High Court in the case of Smt. Namita Goldar and another Vs. Union of India and others(supra) and that too said decision of Honourable Calcutta High Court has neither been challenged by the Union of India/Railway Board before the Apex Court nor any further circular has ever been notified after the judgment of the Calcutta High Court."