Smt. Lad Kunwar & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors.

Shri R.P. Pal, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri Rajpal Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, are present and heard.

Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-

Brief facts of the case are that the husband on applicant no.1 namely Late Shri Hannu worked as Trackman under SSE(PW)(North) Lalitpur who died in harness on 17.08.2020. After that applicant no.1, who is the second wife of Late Shri Hannu, submitted applications dated 20.05.2021, 13.10.2023, 24.11.2023 and 02.07.2024 for grant of compassionate appointment in favour of applicant no.2 before the competent authority amongst the respondents. In response, respondent no.2, vide the impugned order dated 16.01.2026, asked for clarification of the status of the applicant no.1 as a legally wedded wife of the deceased employee from a competent court of law. Hence, the present O.A.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant no.1 is the legally wedded second wife of the deceased employee and the applicant no.2 is his son. The deceased employee had first married respondent no.3 who, after separation, solemnized her marriage with Shri Nathua and is residing at present with him. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applications for compassionate appointment was made in favour of applicant no.2 before the department concerned duly furnishing the no objection certificate given by respondent no.3 but without inquiring into the matter, the respondents, vide the impugned order, directed the applicants to obtain an order from a competent court, which is argued to be unwarranted. It is submitted that since all the other legal heirs have given consent in favour of the applicant no.2, thus, there is no impediment in considering the candidature of the applicant no.2 for compassionate appointment. Thus, it was further argued that although notice has not been issued to respondent no.3, yet, in view of the affidavit given by respondent no.3 which is annexed as annexure no.4, the O.A. be decided at this stage itself directing the respondent to consider the candidature of the applicant no.2 in light of the documents submitted by him for compassionate appointment.

Learned counsel for the official respondents states that the dispute between the first wife (respondent no.3) and the second wife (applicant no.1) regarding their legal status is pending before the Hon’ble High Court in the First Appeal From Order No.271/2024 filed against the order passed by the Family Court. Thus, prayer made by the applicants cannot be processed until and unless the aforesaid dispute is decided. Thus, argued to dismiss the O.A.

I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire documents on record.

From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the applicant No.1 claims herself to be the second wife of the deceased employee. It is also the stand of applicant no.1 that respondent no.3, who is the first wife of the deceased employee, had married another man namely Shri Nathua and is residing with him. Respondent no.3 has also given an affidavit in favour of the applicants for compassionate appointment. The stand of the respondents is that since there is no order passed by any competent court of law recognizing the status of the applicants, thus, vide the impugned order the applicants were directed to obtain the order from a competent court of law in respect of their submission.

It would also be relevant to quote the impugned order dated 16/19.01.2026 passed by the respondent which is as under:-

It is made clear that for considering the candidature of the applicant no.2 for compassionate appointment after the death of the deceased employee, if, as per the facts disclosed in the O.A., respondent no.3, the first wife of the deceased employee, has given her 'no objection' in favour of applicant no.2, then, there is no necessity to obtain an order by a competent court of law in this respect. Compassionate appointment is to be made on the basis of settled principles of law. Nothing is mentioned in the impugned order which disputes the status of applicant no.2. Applicant no.1 and respondent no.3, as per the pleadings taken in the O.A., both have given their consent in favour of applicant no.2 for grant of compassionate appointment. Thus, the respondents ought to have considered the candidature of applicant no.2. If they had any doubt with regard to the consent given by respondent no.3, they could have summoned her for verifying the same.

In view of the foregoing discussions, the impugned order dated 16/19.01.2026 is hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the candidature of applicant no.2 for compassionate appointment in the next CRC to held for the purpose in light of the observations made hereinabove as well as the rules regulating the matter.

Accordingly, the O.A. stands allowed. All associate M.A.s also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.