Geeta Devi vs Union Of India & Ors

Mohan Pyare, Member (A)

Shri A.K. Srivastava, counsel for applicant.

Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, counsel for respondents.

By way of this original application the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-

“(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari commanding the respondents to quash the impugned order dated 13.04.2011 (contained as Annexure A-1 to compilation No.I).

(ii) To issue an order or direction commanding the respondents to provide the appointment on compassionate ground to the applicant.

(iii) Any other relief by way of direction, which this Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant.”

The brief facts of the case are that one Sudama who was employed as Safaiwala in North Eastern Railway Hospital Varanasi, expired on 04.09.2000 survived by his son from the first wife and second wife Smt. Geeta Devi. The second wife and son submitted separate application seeking compassionate ground appointment to competent authority when applicant did not get proper response from the respondents he approached the Tribunal and a direction was issued vide order dated 19.11.2010. The operative portion of the said order is reproduced below:-

“6. O.A. is disposed of finally. Respondents are directed to decide the matter of appointment of the dependent of Late Sudama, an ex-employee of the Railway. The respondents shall consider that who is deserving dependent of Late Sudama, an ex-employee of the Railways, whether the applicant is to be given appointment on compassionate ground or the son of first wife of the deceased. The matter will be decided after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties within a period of six months from the date when copy of this order is produced before them. No costs.”

Even though, the son of the deceased employee filed an application withdrawing his claim, the claim of the applicant has been denied illegally by an order dated 30.03.2011. Thus, applicant wanted to quash the order dated 30.03.2011 and provide compassionate ground appointment to her.

Respondents in their counter reply have submitted that perusal of the speaking order reveals that retrial dues were paid to son of the deceased employee from first wife and to this applicant equally. The applicant has filed OA No.1039 of 2008 which was decided on 19.11.2010 and in compliance of the above order, respondents have passed a speaking and reasoned order dated 30.03.2011. Shri Sanjay Kumar has given statement that CG appointment may be given to his step mother so he has lost to avail the opportunity of CG appointment. So far claim of Smt. Geeta Devi (applicant) is concerned the family of deceased employee has sustained from the date of death of Late Sudama till the date of passing of this speaking order, she is not entitled to get compassionate ground appointment as family is not suffering from financial crisis and surviving without the claimed appointment. Earlier applicant has given consent for compassionate ground appointment to her step son Shri Sanjay Kumar and while the same was being considered by the competent authority, Shri Sanjay Kumar has given a statement that her step mother should be given compassionate ground appointment.

On the basis of above submissions respondents submitted that the original application is devoid of merit hence should be dismissed.

Heard both the counsel for the parties and verified the documents available on record.

During the course of arguments counsel for applicant has submitted a judgment of this Tribunal in OA No.1608 of 2016 in which this Tribunal has directed the respondents to consider the appointment of son of second wife of the deceased employee and on analogy wanted the compassionate ground appointment to second wife (applicant).

The counsel for the applicant has submitted another citation in which direction was issued to respondents (Railways) to consider the representation for compassionate ground appointment citing the reason that even though second wife during survival of first wife be void, still children of such marriage are legitimate. The above two citations did not cover the case of the applicant as competent authority (respondents) have already considered the representation of second wife and son of the first wife and passed a reasoned order citing that once family has survived for so long from the date of death of the deceased employee, it cannot be presumed that family is in penury and deserves compassionate ground appointment. The Hon’ble Supreme court of India has held that CG appointment is an exception to the general rule in favour of the dependants of a person dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. It cannot be taken as a matter of right.

In the light of the above discussions, it is established that the applicant has not been able to establish the relief sought in this original application, hence the original application liable to be dismissed.

The original application is dismissed. No Costs.