Kamla Devi And Ors vs Union of India And Ors

Bharat Bhushan, J

List revised. None present for applicant.

Sri L.M. Singh learned counsel for respondents submitted that despite several opportunities, Rejoinder reply has not been filed by the learned counsel for applicant. Learned counsel for respondents has also pointed out that applicant had filed another Original Application (O.A. No. 1368/2010 Smt. Kamla Devi and another Vs. The Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi and others) for similar relief before Principal Bench of this Tribunal, which has already been decided vide order dated 10th May, 2010. The respondents further submitted that the matter was taken to Delhi High Court by the applicant by filing Writ Petition No. W.P. (C) 6202/2011 (Kamla Devi and another Vs. UOI and others) which has also been dismissed on 26.8.2011. Para No. 1 of the Judgment of Principal Bench passed in O.A. No. 1368/2010 explains the relief which had been sought by the applicant. The relevant portion of judgment are reproduced below:-

"The first applicant is the widow of late Shri Tara Chand who allegedly died on 25.3.1982. The second applicant is the son of late Shri Tara Chand. The first applicant seeks compassionate appointment for the second applicant after lapse of 28 years after the death of Sri Tara Chand.

Misc. Application No. 532/2010, has been filed by the applicants seeking permission to file a joint application. The same is hereby allowed.

The applicants contend that since they belong to Scheduled Caste community, they should be extended the rights provided to them in the Constitution of India by over looking the period of limitation provided under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the second applicant should be given compassionate appointment.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that in fact the deceased railway servant was absconding and therefore they are unable to complete the service records. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that on the intervention of the Tribunal, ex-gratia pension and arrears thereof have been paid to the applicant."

The Tribunal made the following observation while dismissing the O.A. No. 533/2010:-

"5. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records carefully. The payment of ex-gratia pension and arrears thereof does not ipso facto confer any right on the applicants seeking compassionate appointment after a gap of 28 years of the alleged date of death of Sri Tara Chand. The immediacy of the need is conspicuously absent. Besides, the case of the railway is that the deceased was an absconder and that is why his service records could not be completed. He had apparently remained unauthorizedly absent from 1962 to 1982 i.e. till his death. We had given opportunity to the applicant to produce any record showing the service of the deceased. But they could not do so. It would appear that the Railways had imposed a punishment of withholding of increment vide order dated 31.8.1963. Payment of ex-gratia pension and contributory provident fund will not raise any new rights in the applicant. She was given ample opportunity to produce sufficient records and this having not been availed an adverse presumption has to be taken against the applicant. Besides this, agitation of this claim in this fashion seems to us to indicate vexatiousness and frivolity. Temples of justice cannot be allowed to sully by such incursions. Therefore, we hold that there is no merit in this O.A. and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. Consequently, M.A. No. 533/2010, seeking leave to condone the delay in filing the O.A. is also dismissed."

As stated earlier, Writ Petition against the aforesaid order has also been dismissed by the High Court of Delhi vide order dated 26.8.2011. The present O.A. has also been filed for the same releif. Today, no one is present on behalf of the applicant for pursuing this O.A.

Considering all facts and circumstances, this O.A. is not sustainable and therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.