Jayant Patel, J.

1. Rule

2. Mr. Izhar Ahmed, learned Counsel appears for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and waives 3 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 inter alia 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 entitled for the compassionate appointment and the Tribunal also found that when there is no rule produced in respect of providing employment to the children of third wife, the second applicant therein who is respondent No. 2 herein cannot contend that he being the eldest child of late Sri V. Nagraj be considered for compassionate appointment. Ultimately the Tribunal dismissed the application with the cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

5. It appears that thereafter review application was preferred being No. 1/2014 against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal in the review application found that the aspect that the father of the applicant did not obtain permission of the Railway for second marriage was already considered and therefore the second respondent herein who is the eldest son would be entitled to the compassionate appointment. The Tribunal mainly proceeded on the basis that the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the children is of no issue. There is no distinction between the legitimate and illegitimate children and all children are equally to be considered. Hence the Tribunal allowed the review application and also allowed the O.A and further directed the respondents therein to consider the second respondent herein for compassionate appointment. Under the circumstances, the present petition before this Court.

6. We have heard Mr. Abhinay Y.T., learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Izhar Ahmed, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

7. As such, it is an undisputed position that the deceased Government employee Mr. V. Nagraj, did not enter second marriage or third marriage after obtaining permission of Railway. Further, it is also admitted position that the deceased Sri. V. Nagraj died as back as on 11.10.1998 and by now about 18 years time has passed and if we consider the date of the application made before the Tribunal then also about 15 years time had passed.

8. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that as per the Circular of the Railway dated 02.01.1992 unless the marriage was performed after obtaining permission of the Railway, the children of second or third wife would not be entitled for compassionate appointment. Further, he submitted that substantial period of time has passed and the compassionate appointment cannot be considered after such a long time. He relied upon decisions of this Court which shall be considered by us hereinafter. He also contended that the Tribunal, that too in review jurisdiction could not have directed for consideration of the compassionate appointment of the second respondent. Hence he