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 compassionate appointment. The Tribunal has ultimately observed thus:

“Heard. The applicant is a Muslim, the only ground on which he was not considered was that he is the son of a second wife. Assume that he was born of a concubine and not of a wife even then the consideration is only the nexus between father and son and nothing else. The only matter to be considered is that the indigency and suitability of the candidate. Therefore the respondents shall do within two months next and pass appropriate order. OA is allowed to his extent. No order as to costs.”

6. As such, the aforesaid shows that there is no detailed consideration about the aspects of service condition vis-à-vis the personal law of deceased Government Servant. The Tribunal proceeded only on the basis that there exists a relation of father and son and therefore the matter deserves to be considered on suitability of the candidate and ultimately directed for consideration. Under the circumstance, the present petition before this Court.

7. We have heard Mr.Abhinay Y.T., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Ganapathi, learned counsel for the respondent.

8. As such, in our view, the matter is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in WP 37642/15 decided on 14.11.2016 wherein one of the contentions raised was that the circular of the Railways is set aside by the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal. This Court at paragraphs 2 to 16 in the said decision observed thus:

“2. Mr.Izhar Ahmed, learned Counsel appears for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and waives notice of Rule.

3. The present petition is directed against the order dated 13.05.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for the sake of brevity), whereby the Tribunal for the reasons recorded in the order has allowed the review application and has allowed the main OA by directing the respondents to consider the second applicant for compassionate appointment within the stipulated time limit.

4. The short relevant facts of the case appears to be that initially O.A.No.587/2013 was preferred by the respondents for the compassionate appointment of respondent No.2 contending interalia that one Sri V. Nagraj, who was employee of the petitioners died on 11.10.1998 leaving behind three wives. It was submitted that earlier the Tribunal had directed the daughter of second wife Kum. Anitha S.N., to be considered for compassionate appointment. However, the daughter of second wife was medically found unfit and therefore it was prayed that respondent No.2 herein being the son of third wife be treated as eligible for compassionate appointment and the petitioners be directed to consider the same. In the said O.A. vide order dated 25.07.2013 the Tribunal found that there is no rule that the eldest child should be e