The General Manager vs Nithya Martin Christiane

K.T. Sankaran, J.—Jayaraj, father of Nithya and Divya, was an employee in the Southern Railway. He died in harness. His widow is Dhanapushpam.

Nithya, the daughter of Jayaraj, made a claim for appointment in the Southern Railway under the compassionate employment scheme. That request was rejected. Thereafter, the widow of Jayaraj put forward a claim for Divya. That was also rejected. Divya also made a claim for compassionate employment. Meanwhile, Nithya made an application for re-considering her claim for compassionate employment. The General Manager of Southern Railway rejected that claim as per the order dated 15.3.2013 (Annexure A10). Nithya challenged the orders rejecting her claim for compassionate employment before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the orders passed by the Southern Railway and directed them to consider the request made by Nithya for appointment under the compassionate employment scheme. While doing so, the Tribunal imposed costs of 10,000/- each on the General Manager of Southern Railway and the Secretary (Establishment), Railway Board (Respondents 1 and 5 respectively before the Tribunal). The Central Administrative Tribunal also made several adverse remarks against the officials of the Railway while disposing of the Original Petition. The order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is challenged by the General Manager, Southern Railway and others, who are respondents 1 to 5 before the Tribunal.

At the time when Jayaraj was in service of the Railways, Nithya was married, but her relationship with her husband was not cordial. It would appear that Nithya was staying with her father as his dependant. Later, Nithya''s husband filed a divorce petition before the Family Court, Palakkad. The Family Court dismissed that Original Petition, which was challenged by him in Mat. Appeal No. 741 of 2011 before this Court. Pending that Mat. Appeal, Nithya and her husband settled their disputes before the Mediation Centre and a mediated settlement agreement was arrived at. The Division Bench accepted that agreement holding cruelty as a ground for divorce. Certain observations were made in paragraph 5 of that judgment for justifying the passing of a decree of divorce. Nithya filed a Review Petition to expunge those remarks made in paragraph 5 of the judgment. The Division Bench allowed the Review Petition and paragraph 5 of the judgment was substituted by another paragraph.

In the order dated 15.3.2013 (Annexure A10), the claim was rejected on the ground that Nithya was leading "quite a chequered life as appears to have been accepted by the Honourable Court also". The Tribunal noticed that the High Court had reviewed the earlier order and expunged the adverse remarks against Nithya and this fact was not noticed in Annexure A10 order.

The Central Administrative Tribunal considered the claim put forward by Nithya in detail and held that the rejection of her claim for appointment was not justified. While doing so, several adverse remarks were made against the officers of the Southern Railway and also imposed costs of 10,000/- on two of its officers. The Tribunal also directed the application of Nithya to be considered afresh in the light of Annexure A9 report.

We do not find any ground to interfere with the finding of the Central Administrative Tribunal setting aside the orders passed by the respondents before the Tribunal rejecting the claim made by Nithya. However, we do not find any justification for making adverse comments and remarks against the officers of the Southern Railway to justify the setting aside of the orders passed by them. The Tribunal was also not justified in imposing costs on the officers of the Railway.

Therefore, while upholding the direction to respondents 1 to 5 before the Tribunal to reconsider the claim of Nithya for compassionate employment, we set aside the direction to pay costs and also expunge all adverse remarks in the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal against the officers of the Southern Railway. As directed by the Tribunal, the claim made by Nithya shall be considered afresh.

The learned counsel appearing for Nithya submitted that subsequent to the filing of the O.P. (CAT), Divya and Dhanapushpam had relinquished claims for compassionate employment and they issued No Objection Certificates dated 21.8.2014, true copies of which were produced as Exhibits R1(a) and R1(b). Nithya had also signed an undertaking before the Notary Public that on getting employment under the compassionate employment scheme, she would look after her mother Dhanapushpam (marked as Exhibit R1(c)). We hold that Nithya would be entitled to submit the originals of Exhibits R1(a), R1(b) and R1(c) before the General Manager, Southern Railway, which will be duly considered while disposing of the claim of Nithya under the compassionate employment scheme as directed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that Nithya had made unwarranted remarks against the High Court. In paragraph 4.5 of the O.A. filed by her before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Nithya averred that the High Court made disparaging remarks about the applicant which were totally unwarranted in a compromise decree. The learned counsel appearing for Nithya submitted that Nithya unconditionally apologizes for making those remarks against the High Court and she withdraws the same. The apology is accepted.

The O.P. (CAT) is disposed of as above.