Smt. Suman Devi & Ors. vs Divisional Railway Manager, Nor Central Railway, Allahabad & Ors.

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Raj Pal Singh, learned counsel for the respondents are present and heard.

The applicants have approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for the following relief(s):-

The brief facts of the case are that the husband of applicant No. 1, namely Shri Sangam Lal Pandey, was working as Medical Peon under the respondents and went missing on 28.08.2005. Applicant No. 2 lodged an F.I.R. on 14.09.2005, but Shri Sangam Lal Pandey could not be traced. The applicants thereafter sought appointment on compassionate grounds for their sons. Earlier, the applicants had approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 671 of 2013, which was disposed of vide order dated 18.02.2022 with a direction to the respondents to consider the request/application of the applicants strictly in accordance with the guidelines contained in the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds. Pursuant thereto, the respondents considered the claim and passed the impugned order rejecting the same. The applicants have also placed on record the relevant educational and family membership documents and have submitted a representation dated 06.03.2024 seeking consideration of the claim of applicant No. 3 for appointment on compassionate grounds.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that earlier applicant Nos. 1 and 2 had approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 671 of 2013, which was disposed of vide order dated 18.02.2022 with a direction to the respondents to consider their request for appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance with the applicable scheme and guidelines. Learned counsel further submits that the earlier order dated 14.12.2012 rejecting the claim was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court by the respondents by filing Writ-A No. 6729 of 2022, wherein no interim relief was granted vide order dated 18.05.2022. Thereafter, contempt proceedings were initiated and, pursuant to the compliance proceedings, the respondents passed the impugned order.

Learned counsel further submits that while considering the claim, the respondents have not appreciated the facts and documents in their proper perspective and have mixed up the particulars of applicant Nos. 2 and 3, including their educational qualifications and other relevant particulars. He further submits that, in case the claim of applicant No. 2 is not found acceptable, the claim of applicant No. 3, namely Bal Krishna Pandey, may be considered in accordance with the applicable scheme. In this regard, a representation dated 06.03.2024 was submitted to the respondents along with the relevant documents.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the claim for compassionate appointment was rejected as the deceased employee had rendered less than two years of service and, therefore, the family was not entitled to compassionate appointment in terms of para 3(2)(a) of Railway Board’s Circular RBE No. 164/1998 dated 26.07.1998. Learned counsel further submits that an inquiry was conducted by the Welfare Inspector, wherein discrepancies were found in the documents and particulars furnished by the applicants, including the date of birth, marital status and educational qualifications of applicant No. 2, and that the claim was accordingly rejected by the competent authority.

In the rejoinder affidavit, the applicants have denied the averments made in the counter reply and reiterated and reaffirmed the averments made in the Original Application. It is further stated that the respondents have wrongly understood the identity and particulars of applicant Nos. 2 and 3. It is also stated that applicant No. 2, though registered with the Bar Council and Bar Association, is not a regular practitioner and has no source of livelihood.

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the aforesaid representation dated 06.03.2024 (Annexure No. A-8) may be considered by the respondents/competent authority for considering the claim of applicant No. 3 for appointment on compassionate grounds, in accordance with the applicable rules and guidelines, within a time-bound period.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has no objection if such a direction is issued to the competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation in accordance with law.

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, I am of the opinion that the Original Application is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2/Competent Authority to consider and decide the representation dated 06.03.2024 submitted by applicant No. 1 with regard to the claim of applicant No. 3 for appointment on compassionate grounds, in accordance with law and the applicable rules and guidelines, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

It is made clear that this Tribunal has not entered into the merits of the case.

Accordingly, the Original Application stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, stand disposed of.