Rule.

2. Mr. Ganapathi, learned counsel appears for the respondent and waives notice of rule.

3. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both the sides, petition is finally heard.

4. The present petition is directed against the order dated 16.12.2015 passed by the Tribunal whereby, the Tribunal has allowed the application observing that there exists relation of father and son and therefore, the respondent should consider the case for compassionate appointment.

5. The short facts of the case appear to be that, one Abdul Azeez Nizamuddin was working as key man with the Railwaysthe petitioner herein. He expired on 12.9.2012 while on duty. It appears that the respondent claimed for compassionate appointment on the ground that he was born to the second wife of the railway employee. But, the Railway authorities did not offer compassionate appointment and therefore, OA No.765/2015 was preferred before the Tribunal. It was contended inter alia that a civil suit OS No.292/13 was filed and in the said suit, a decree was passed on August 20, 2013 and as per the settlement, the parties namely the first wife had expressed ‘no objection’ if the respondent claimed the compassiona