Himanshu Kumari vs Union Of India & Ors.

Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

Heard Shri A.D. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Shikha Dixit/Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondents on Misc. Stay Application NO. 4451 of 2025.

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the present Original Application has been filed with the prayer to direct the respondents to grant family pension, equal share of terminal benefits, and arrears of family pension. The applicant has also prayed for a direction restraining the respondents from granting compassionate appointment to respondent No. 4. The Misc. Stay Application No. 4451 of 2025 has been filed with the prayer to restrain respondent Nos. 1 to 3 from appointing respondent No. 4 on compassionate grounds. If stay order is not granted, the applicant would suffer irreparable loss.

Learned counsel for the applicant further referred to the provisions of Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and argued that since the O.A. is pending before this Tribunal, the respondents cannot proceed with granting compassionate appointment to respondent No. 4.

Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, on the basis of instructions received, submitted that no divorce took place between the deceased employee and respondent No. 4, rather, the divorce petition filed on behalf of the deceased employee was dismissed. It is further submitted that in the maintenance case, the deceased employee was directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to respondent No. 4. It is also argued that the applicant is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee, and therefore, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have rightly proceeded to pay retiral benefits in equal shares, i.e., 50% to respondent No. 4 and 50% to the minor sons of the applicant. It is further argued that since the applicant, being the second wife, is not legally entitled to compassionate appointment, no direction can be issued to restrain the respondents from proceeding with the process of compassionate appointment.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 argued that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee, thus, she is entitled for compassionate appointment as well as family pension, and therefore prayed for rejection of Misc. Stay Application No. 4451 of 2025.

I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record carefully.

From the submissions advanced, it is evident that the official respondents have proceeded to disburse retiral benefits by apportioning 50% to respondent No. 4 and 50% to the minor sons of the applicant. The main prayer in this stay application is to restrain respondent Nos. 1 to 3 from granting compassionate appointment to respondent No. 4.

The stand of the official respondents is that the process for compassionate appointment has already been initiated and such appointment shall be made only on the basis of “No Objection” from all the legal heirs of the deceased employee. In these circumstances, keeping in view the main relief as well as the interim prayer made in Misc. Stay Application No. 4451 of 2025, no prima facie case is made out at this stage to restrain the official respondents from making compassionate appointment on the death of the deceased employee who will be appointed on compassionate ground, will be decided after making enquiry and affording opportunity of hearing to all the stake holder. Accordingly, the prayer made in Misc. Stay Application No. 4451 of 2025 is rejected. The matter has already been admitted.

Four weeks’ further time is granted to the respondents to file their counter affidavit. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List this case on 04.11.2025 before the Registrar for completion of pleadings.