AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER: HON’BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
“…to consider the applicant for appointment on Compassionate grounds as the family is in financial distress and to release the Family Pension and Retirement benefits and pass such other order or orders deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, are given in a nutshell below:
The applicant's husband, late Chowda Prasad, died in harness, on 28.05.2021, due to ill health, leaving behind his dependent family members, after serving as a Porter in the office of the CPSR/O/BZA/SC Railway Commercial Department for more than two decades. The Sr.DPO, BZA, issued Memorandum, dt.28.05.2021, releasing an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral advance to the wife, viz., the applicant, immediately after the demise of her husband, on proper identification and under clear acknowledgement. Railway authorities allowed her to continue in the Railway Quarter and, vide Memorandum, dt.10.08.2022, directed the applicant to vacate the quarter, stating that, as soon as the quarter is vacated, gratuity, etc., will be released to the occupant, i.e., Smt. Ch. Jyothi, the applicant herein.
The applicant claims that, though the applicant, being the wife of the deceased Railway employee, is entitled to all the benefits, Respondents are taking their own time to settle the same and have not yet released the family pension and the retirement benefits. Immediately, after the demise of her husband, the applicant had approached the G.M.,SCR/R-1 and requested for appointment in the Railways on compassionate grounds. However, the Railway authorities are not taking any steps to consider her case and adopting dilatory tactics, because of which the applicant's family is suffering as her husband has left her without any properties. She also does not have any other source of income. Arguing that she has passed intermediate and is entitled to consideration for compassionate appointment, since late Chowda Prasad had died in harness, leaving the family in distress.
The applicant has relied upon the following judgments in support of her claim:
a. Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh [1997 (8) SCC 85].
b. Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar [1998 (5) SCC 192].
c. State of Haryana v. Ankur Gupta [2003 (7) SCC 704].
On notice, Respondents have filed their reply statement opposing the relief sought by the Applicant, by arguing as follows:
Respondents have raised preliminary objection on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties to the list, viz., the children of the 1st wife of the deceased employee, who are the rightful claimants for the death benefits of the deceased employee. The applicant is aware of the 1st marriage of the deceased employee. Hence, the OA is liable for dismissal on this ground alone.
It is further submitted that Sri. Chowda Prasad was appointed as a Gangman on 23.06.1994, on compassionate grounds. Subsequently, due to his medical decategorisation, he was provided with alternate employment and absorbed as a Porter in the Commercial Department. He died on 28.05.2021, due to black fungus, while in service. Consequently, the applicant submitted an application, dt.11.06.2021, claiming death benefits and Compassionate Ground Appointment (CGA), as his wife. Later, she submitted a representation, dt.02.07.2021, enclosing the Marriage Certificate, dt.25.06.2011(Ann R-1), issued by the Marriage Registrar, Bapatla, to the effect that marriage between the applicant and the deceased employee, viz., late Chowda Prasad, had taken place on 25.06.2011, as per the Hindu Marriage Act, and requested to grant her death benefits and CGA.
Respondents contend that the applicant has submitted another representation, dt.28.04.2023, stating that she was in a live-in relationship with the deceased employee from the year 2011 onwards, as a result of which, she had given birth to a male child, named Sandeep, on 17.04.2012. The said admission of the applicant contradicts the Marriage Certificate, dt.25.06.2011, purportedly issued by the Marriage Registrar, Bapatla, to the effect that marriage between the applicant and the deceased employee was solemnized on 25.06.2011. It is stated in the representation at Ann-R-3 that the deceased employee had taken divorce from his first wife, Smt.Ch.Vanaja, on 20.08.2018, and, later, married the applicant as per Christian Customs, on 11.12.2018. Marriage Certificate No.125, dt.11.12.2018, issued by one K.Venkateswarlu, Pastor, Innimetla (Post), Rajupalem Mandal, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, has been enclosed showing that marriage between the applicant and the deceased employee, Chowda Prasad, was solemnized on 11.12.2018, as per the Indian Christian Marriage Act. The Marriage Certificate, dt.11.12.2018, contradicts the Marriage Certificate, dt.25.06.2011, in regard to the date of marriage and the Act governing such marriage. Also the marriage certificate, dt.11.12.2018, shown to have been issued under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, lacks logic, because the deceased employee was a Hindu, and, as per his Railway Service Register, his marriage was governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Hence, both the above marriage certificates cannot be authentic at the same time.
It is argued that, if the Marriage Certificate, dt.25.06.2011, issued by the Marriage Registrar, Bapatla, as per the Hindu Marriage Act, is true and the legal divorce between the deceased employee and his 1stwife, Smt. Vanaja, took place on 20.08.2018, then Smt. Vanaja (1st wife) was the legally wedded wife of the late employee, as on 25.06.2011, and, thereby, it establishes that the marriage solemnized between the deceased employee and the applicant, on 25.06.2011, is void ab initio, as per Section-5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, since the spouse of the deceased employee was alive and their marriage was subsisting at the time of the second marriage of the said employee with the applicant.
It is also submitted that, the applicant has submitted another representation, dt.28.04.2023, seeking compassionate appointment for herself as the second wife. In the meantime, Sri.Chowda Sasivanth, the son of the deceased employee and Smt. Vanaja, his 1st wife, also submitted a representation, on 20.02.2023, seeking CGA. Therefore, the Railway Administration deputed the Staff and Welfare Inspector to conduct a discreet inquiry to verify the claim of the applicant.
The reports, dt.09.05.2023, and, dt.16.08.2023 (Anns.R-7 & R-8), submitted by the Staff and Welfare Inspector (S&WI), reveal that the deceased employee, while working as Gangman at SSE/P. Way/BPP, had made the following declaration regarding his family members, which was entered in the record book maintained at the office of SSE/P.Way/BPP (Ann.R-9):
| S.No. | Name | Relationship | D.O.B |
| 01 | Ch.Vanaja | Wife | 05.06.1975 |
| 02 | Ch.Sasivanth | Son/Unmarried | 03.05.1998 |
| 03 | Ch.Divya | Daughter/unmarried | 16.01.2000 |
Later, the deceased employee, while working as a Porter, under the control of SS/O/BZA, declared the following as his family members, on 05.06.2017, vide Ann. R-10 :-
| S.No. | Name | Relationship | D.O.B |
| 01 | Ch.Prasad | Self | 02.06.1974 |
| 02 | Ch.Jyothi | Wife | 12.08.1989 |
| 03 | Ch.Sandeep | Son | 17.04.2012 |
In this context, it is submitted by the respondents that the deceased employee took advantage at the time of joining a new post, at a new office, and submitted a new family declaration, dt.05.06.2017, as above, in the office of the SS/O/BZA, unlawfully, by replacing the names of his 1st wife and his 02 children, from his 1st wife, as given in the Family Member Declaration, submitted earlier in the office of SSE/P.Way/BPP, even though his marriage with his 1st wife, Smt.Ch. Vanaja, was subsisting. The marriage between the deceased employee, late Ch.Prasad, and Smt.Ch.Jyothi was shown to have been solemnized on 25.06.2011, whereas the marriage between the deceased employee and his 1st wife, Smt. Vanaja, came to be dissolved on 20.08.2018, by the Family Court, Ongole, vide its order, dt.20.08.2018, in DOP No.35/2017. The Family Declaration, dt.05.06.2017, declaring that the applicant was his wife and Master Sandeep, born on 17.04.2012, was his son, was executed well before the divorce from his 1st wife. Therefore, the marriage between the applicant and the deceased employee, solemnized before the legal divorce, is void. Further, if the marriage of the applicant was held with the deceased employee after his divorce from the 1st wife, on 20.08.2018, then Master Ch.Sandeep was born on 17.04.2012, outside a valid marriage. It is brought to notice that the representation, dt.20.02.2023, submitted by Chowta Sasivanth, the son of the deceased employee from the 1st wife, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, is under examination, as per Rules.
According to the respondents, the applicant cannot be treated as a member of the family of the deceased employee for the purpose of death benefits of the deceased employee, under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, since, as per Rule-70, the 1st wife (though judicially separated) and the legitimate children of the deceased employee are the 'family' of the deceased employee for the purpose of Death-cum-retirement gratuity. Accordingly, the applicant's representation, dt.28.04.2023, was disposed of vide letter, dt.09.06.2023, informing her that she is not eligible for death benefits. She was also informed, vide letter, dt.12.10.2023, that her request for CGA was not considered.
As regards the funeral advance, it is submitted that it is arranged to provide immediate financial assistance for cremation of the deceased employee, but it does not entitle the person receiving it to claim death benefits and appointment on compassionate grounds, as legal relationship with the deceased employee needs to be established, beyond any doubt, as per the Rules, for release of the retirement benefits.
The Death Gratuity or Retirement Gratuity of the employee, as the case may be, will be withheld till the Railway Quarter, allotted to the Railway employee, is vacated. In order to process the Death Gratuity, the applicant who was in occupation of the Railway Quarter, was advised to vacate it, vide memorandum, dt.10.08.2022.
It is also contended that, after the death of late Ch.Prasad, the applicant got remarried to one Peram Vijay Babu, S/o Babu Rao, and both are living together at Adinarayana Puram, Epurupalem village, and written statements of villagers and Smt. Peram Preethi (the wife of Sri. Peram Vijaya Babu) were obtained to this effect.
In view of the above, the Staff and Welfare Inspector had concluded that the second marriage is void and also that both the wives are not eligible to claim death benefits and Compassionate Ground Appointment benefits on account of the death of the deceased employee. Compassionate appointment is a matter of policy of the employer and the employer cannot be compelled to provide compassionate appointment, contrary to its policy/scheme.
Private Respondent Nos.3, 4 & 5, who got impleaded as party Respondents in this OA, have also filed affidavits, opposing the relief prayed for by the applicant. It is contended that, having come to know that Chowda Prasad had married the Applicant, during the subsistence of his marriage with the 1st wife, Smt. Vanaja/R-3, Smt Vanaja had given a written report upon which an F.I.R, vide Crime No. 118/2017, dt.14.08.2017, was registered at the Chirala II Town Police Station, for offences committed U/Sec. 494,506 and 509 IPC, wherein the said Chowda Prasad was arrayed as Accused No. 1 and Chavala Jyothi/ Applicant, was arrayed as Accused No. 2. The Investigation Officer filed a charge sheet in the said case which was numbered as CC. No. 130/2018, on the file of the Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, and the same is pending adjudication. It is further submitted that late Chowda Prasad had filed a petition U/sec 10 (1) (x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, on the file of the Family Court-cum-VIII Addl. District Judge, Ongole, for the dissolution of his marriage and the same was numbered as DOP 35 of 2017 and he had obtained an ex-parte decree on 28.08.2018, nullifying his marriage with Smt. Vanaja, since 13.03.1996. It is argued that the applicant has no locus nor entitlement to claim CGA, etc., and her request for the same was rightly rejected by the department.
Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the materials placed on record.
Learned counsels for the respondents submit that there has been complete mis-representation of facts by the applicant to the department as well as to the judiciary with regard to her marriage to the deceased during the subsistence of the earlier marriage of the employee, and, thereafter, she has gone and married another person already, which is being concealed by her.
Counsel for the applicant has drawn attention to the order of dissolution of marriage between Respondent No.3 and her husband, late Chowda Prasad by the Family Court, Prakasam district, as well as the change in the declaration of the names of family members vide Ann. R-8. Both these documents, which have been furnished by the respondent department, support the applicant’s claim, according to him. The divorce was granted on the ground of desertion by the first wife, more than 7 years prior to filing for divorce in the year 2017. He also stated that the petitioner had been staying with the deceased employee and they formalised their relationship on 11.10.2018, as per Ann.R-4. Thus, the status of the applicant herein, as the wife of the deceased employee, is confirmed and she is legally entitled to all the benefits. Even if the deceased employee was a Hindu and the marriage certificate is issued under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, the department is not competent to question its validity, unless it is challenged in a Court of law. He has relied upon the order, dt.07.11.2025, of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, in CRP. No.1148 of 2025, according to which there is no illegality so far as the marriage of the applicant or her claims are concerned.
Coming to the representation, dt.11.06.2021, of the applicant, filed as Ann.A-VII, with the O.A., the said representation was rejected by the Railway Authorities, on 06.01.2022, as per the implead petition in M.A./420/2023, of Respondent No(s). 3 to 5. The plea of the applicant’s counsel is that it is an internal communication, and was not shared with the applicant. According to the counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, though the said rejection order, dt.06.01.2022, was very much a part of the reply statement of the official respondents, filed on 27.12.2023, besides, being part of the implead petition, filed on 09.10.2023, the applicant had not contested it, so far, nor was any rejoinder filed to refute the submissions, made by the official as well as the unofficial respondents, on this point. It is also argued that even the other representation, dt.28.04.2023, marked as Ann.R-3, with the reply statement of the official respondents, was disposed of, vide orders, dt.09.06.2023 and 12.10.2023, annexed as Anns.R-15 and R-16, respectively. He also emphasises that the status of the first wife and her children has not been disputed. Therefore, this O.A. is, actually, not maintainable, for failure to array the necessary parties and also because the representation(s), mentioned in the Interim Relief, have already been disposed of. Further, para 4 of the reply statement of the official respondents, cites the contradictions, in the claim regarding marriage on different dates, while asserting that the applicant was in a live-in relationship with the deceased employee. Though claiming the benefits, as the second wife, the applicant has already married one Mr. Priyam Vijaya Babu (Ann.R-12), it is alleged. However, according to the applicant’s counsel, there is no proof of remarriage of the applicant, except for some statements collected by the Welfare Inspector from the villagers in this regard, as annexed by the official Respondents, vide Ann.R-12.
Basically, the grievance of the applicant, is that, after treating her as the wife of the deceased employee, Railways cannot deny her the pensionary benefits and CGA. Orders for Funeral Advance and Vacation of Railway Accommodation, vide Ann.A-II & III, respectively, are cited in support of her contention. According to the counsel for the applicant, since Respondent No. 3 obtained divorce in the year 2018, there is no question of considering her as a respondent in the year 2023. He maintains that the employee, late Ch Prasad, married the applicant only after securing divorce from his first wife. Therefore, only the applicant is entitled to all the pensionary benefits, besides getting compassionate ground appointment. He also makes specific submission to the effect that the case of the applicant, in no way, is meant to deprive the children of the deceased employee, from the first wife, of their due.
Learned counsel for the Respondents have vehemently argued that the applicant cannot be regarded as the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee, as her marriage with the deceased employee on 25.06.2011, is void as per the Hindu Marriage Act, nor is she eligible for compassionate appointment and family pension in the capacity of the wife of the deceased employee, late Ch.Prasad, as the applicant had married one Peram Vijay Babu, after the death of the deceased employee.
It is noticed that Ann.R-2 is a marriage certificate of 2011, issued under the Hindu Marriage Act. In the declaration of the names of family members, furnished by the deceased employee, on 05.06.2017, names of the first wife and his children are replaced with those of the second wife and his son from her. The subsequent certificate under the Christian Marriage Act is of 2018, though both of them are stated to be Hindus. According to the counsel for the Respondents, the applicant had not denied her marriage to Shri P. Vijay Babu, after the death of the deceased employee, late Ch. Prasad. According to the counsel for the applicant, there is no need to counter this allegation as the document in this regard, at Ann.R-12, is bogus and not a formal report by the Welfare Inspector, in this regard. The whole scenario gets further confusing as the applicant claimed in her representation, dt.02.07.2021, that she married Ch.Prasad on 25.06.2011 in a Church at Bapatla, but the Marriage Certificate, dt.25.06.2011 (Ann.R-2), reads as follows –
“This marriage Cermony has been done by me, with their consegned according to Hindu Marriage Act, (Caste) at Bridegroom’s residence.” Additional documents filed, on 23.04.2025, by R-3, 4 & 5, contain letter, dt.25.10.2024, of the Sub Registrar, Bapatla, and letter of the District Registrar, Ongole, which shows that the marriage certificate, dt.11.12.2018, is bogus.
It has been submitted by the counsel for the Respondents that, as per the letter, dated, 25.10.2024, of the Registration of Marriages Department, no registration was done of the wedding of Ch. Jyothi and Ch. Prasad, either in 2011 or in 2018, and the same reply was furnished by the District Magistrate's Office, Ongole, vide their letter, dated 29.10.2024. The marriage again shown to have been performed on 11.12.2018, was also not registered, as per the letter, dt.29.10.2024, of the District Registrar’s Office, Ongole. Hence, neither of the marriage certificates produced by the Applicant can be relied upon.
According to the counsel for the applicant, the 2nd marriage has not been challenged by the 1st wife, Smt. CH. Vanaja, and, in view of the divorce, the 1st wife is no longer entitled to any retiral/ pensionary benefits and the applicant remains the legally wedded wife.
Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents has drawn attention to M.A.No.420/2023 along with which the marriage certificate, dated 13.03.1996, of Mr. Chouta Prasad and Mrs. Munja Vanaja, has been enclosed as Ann.R-2. Vide judgment, dt.22.07.2013, in M.C. No. 53/2010 (Ann.R-3), both children of Mr. Prasad from Mrs. Vanaja were awarded Rs. 1500/- each, for their maintenance.
It is found that the Railways have already rejected the case of Smt. Ch. Jyothi (the applicant), vide note, dt.06.01.2022, filed along with the Implead Petition. Unofficial respondents have filed M.A. No.154/2026, which contains a family declaration, dt.27.09.2013, at page 12, (Ann.A-6) wherein, the details of family members, viz., Ch.Jyothi and Ch.Sandeep, particularly in respect of age and spelling, are totally different from those said to have been declared by the deceased employee on 05.06.2017. The declaration, dt.05.06.2017, does not even bear the signature of the deceased official.
There is merit in the argument on behalf of the private respondents, R3-R5, that mere release of money by the respondent authorities towards the funeral expenses, does not confer any right on the Applicant, as no verification would done at such a time and the money will be given by the Department to the family of the deceased to ensure that the deceased employee has a dignified funeral and it is not the appropriate time nor forum for identification or declaration of relationship with the deceased of the individual, performing the last rites. It is also noted that whenever an employee ceases to be on the rolls of any organization, by virtue of his retirement, death, termination, etc., in general, the organization instructs the employee or the residents of such quarters to vacate it and no right accrues to the resident of the quarter, as claimed by the Applicant.
The following submission made by R3 to R5 is worth noting -
“the applicant stated that her marriage was performed on 25.06.2011 and 11.12.2018 at Bapatla and Guntur before Sub-registrar office. I further submit that I requested information from the Baptla Sub-registrar office under the Right to Information Act, 2005, regarding the applicant's and Chowda Prasad's marital status, and then on 25.10.2024 Baptla sub registrar office has sent a letter saying that from the period 01.01.2011 to 31.12.2018 the said marriage was not performed and no certificate has been issued from Bapatla Sub registrar office, this information has been issued by Sri John Mohan Kumar, Sub-registrar cum public information officer, Baptia. And I further submit that Ongole Joint Sub-registrar office has also given a letter Endl. No/RTI/187/2024 dt 29.10.2024 saying that the marriage between the applicant and Chowda Prasad was not performed and no certificate was issued by the Joint Sub-registrar Ongole dt 13.10.2024 these documents are enclosed along with this affidavit.... ...... the applicant has instituted a false case by relying on fabricated documents and is now seeking relief before this Hon'ble Tribunal on the basis of such misrepresentations, which is wholly improper and contrary to the principles of justice and fairness. The two marriage certificates, produced by the applicant were fabricated documents and that was confirmed by the Public information officer under the Right to Information, Act 2005 Baptla. Therefore the marriage itself has not been performed to the applicant and Chowda Prasad so that the claim cannot be raised by the applicant.”
It is significant that, as far back as 06.01.2022, the APO(G), BZA, had taken a decision on file, on the basis of the facts of the case, as follows, which also disposed of the request, dt.07.08.2021, on behalf of Smt. Ch. Jyothi, the applicant, herein, in the following manner -
“1.From the above court order, the 1st marriage of ex-employee with Smt. Vanaja was dissolved on 20.08.2018. Hence, she is not eligible for any death benefits but her two children are eligible for death benefits.
ii.The 2nd marriage of ex-employee on 25.06.2011 with Ch.Jyothi is not legally valid because, without taking divorce from his 1st wife Smt. Ch. Vanaja, he married Ch. Jyothi. But the one child (Son) born through her is void child but he is eligible for death benefits.”
It is also worth noting that the Railway Board, vide RBE.No.42/2018, has circulated the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State Bank of India & Another Vs Rajkumar (Civil Appeal No. 1641 of 2010), which reads follows:
“It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. On the other hand it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. The dependents of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The claim for compassionate appointment is, therefore, traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme....."
3.Railway Board has also taken into account following observation of Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand (Ranchi) in writ petition No. WP(S) 16 of 2014 (pronounced on 24.07.2014) “Compassionate appointment is a matter of policy of the employer and the employer cannot be compelled to provide compassionate appointment contrary to its policy/scheme. When there is specific circular which clearly provides that the children of second marriage of the employee shall not be eligible for compassionate appointment, no direction can be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner.”
4.The matter has been examined and in supersession of this Ministry’s letter dated 02.01.1992 issued under RBE No. 01/1992 and No. E(NG)II/2012/RC-1/21 dated 03.04.2013, it has been decided that the first right of being considered for compassionate grounds appointment is vested, in cases of death of Railway servants while in service, with the legally wedded surviving widow provided she has not remarried at the time of making request for appointments on compassionate grounds. It is clarified that in cases of those Railway Servants who are governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, there can only be one legally wedded wife/widow, as second marriage, while spouse is living, is void/voidable in view of the Section 5(1) read with Section 11 of the Act. In this respect, Railway Board’s letter No. E(D&A)92 GS 1-1 dated 10.04.1992 connects.” (emphasis supplied)
We find that there is a well-defined policy in respect of the rights of the children of the deceased employee from a woman who is not a legally wedded wife. The applicant has submitted contradictory claims about the date of the marriage and even the declaration of the deceased employee on 27.09.2013, showing her as his wife, runs counter to the claim of the applicant that her marriage to late Ch. Prasad had taken place only after the 1st wife had been given divorce. Official correspondence from the Registration Department, Govt. of A.P., has not supported either of the marriage certificates. Enquiry report of the Welfare Inspector has held that neither Ch. Vanaja nor the applicant are eligible to claim settlement or CGA benefits.
The provisions under RBE No.218/2019, dt.30.12.2019, which apply to the children of the deceased employee in the present circumstances, are as follows:-
“2.In the case of Union of India vs. V.R. Tripathi, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had, vide their order dated 11.12.2018 in OA No. 12015/2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 32004/2016) dismissed on merits the Appeal filed against the Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s Order in WP No. 910/2015 and in WP No.892/2015 in two Central Railway cases that permitted consideration for grant of compassionate appointment to the child of the 2nd wife of the deceased Railway employee. Subsequently, several other judgements of Hon’ble High Courts have been received in which consideration for grant of compassionate ground appointment to a child born to the 2nd wife of the employee has been directed based on similar ratio.
3.The matter has, therefore, been reviewed by Board in view of above Judicial pronouncements considering also the views of the Central Agency Section of the Ministry of Law 85 Justice. In partial supersession of Board’s Circular No. E(NG)II/91/RC-1/136 dated 02.01.1992 (RBE No. 1/1992) referred to, it has now been decided that children born to the second wife may also be considered for compassionate appointment even where the second marriage has not been specifically permitted by the administration. However, since compassionate appointment after demise of the Railway employee can be considered for granting to only one dependent family member on merits, a child born to the second wife can be considered for such appointment only after ascertaining that there is no objection to this from the first wife or her Children. Where the first wife (legally wedded wife) opts for such compassionate appointment either for herself or one of her own children, such claim will have priority over any competing claim made by the second wife for any of her children.”
The rules in regard to appointment on compassionate grounds are clear and in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In the face of gross material inconsistencies in the submissions of the applicant, and on examination of the material placed before this Bench, it is found that the applicant has failed to make out a case in her favour. No merit is found in the claim of the applicant. The OA is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.