Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. With the consent of and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 21st July, 2017 made by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Original Application No. 710 of 2015 dismissing OA No. 710 of 2015 instituted by the petitioners.

4. In OA No. 710 of 2015 instituted by the petitioners, the petitioners had applied for the following substantive reliefs :

“(a) This Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to call for the records of the case from the Respondents and after examining the same quash and set aside the impugned order dated 27-10-2015 with all consequential benefits.

(b) This Hon’ble Tribunal may further be pleased to hold and declare that Applicant No. 2 is actually entitled to be considered actually entitled to be considered for grant of compassionate appointment.

(c) This Hon’ble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the case of Applicant No. 2 for grant of compassionate appointment and if found fit to appoint him on a suitable Group D post with all consequential benefits.

(d) Costs of the Applicant be provided for.

(e) Any other and further order as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit in the nature and circumstances of the case be passed.”

5. There is no dispute that Ashok Ghodke was an employee with the Central Railways working as a Senior Safaiwala (Group ‘D’ post) at the time of his demise on 22nd June, 2008. Ashok Ghodke was married to Nirmala and had two children from the wedlock-a daughter named Shraddha (now married to Satish Ingale) and son Sachin Ghodke-petitioner No. 2. Upon demise of his first wife, Nirmala on 18th November, 1989, Ashok Ghodke married Chhaya Ghodke (respondent No. 3) on 10th November, 1990. From the second marriage, Ashok and Chhaya begot two sons Nitin and Akshay.

6. There were disputes during the life time of Ashok Ghodke, as a result of which, his second wife Chhaya started residing separately. She instituted proceedings for maintenance and was even awarded maintenance by the competent Courts. The petitioner No. 1, who is the mother of Ashok Ghodke and the petitioner No. 2, who is the son of Ashok Ghodke contended that the previous marriage of the respondent No. 3 Chhaya was subsisting and therefore, her marriage with Ashok Ghodke was neither legal nor proper. The disputes were attempted to be sorted out by certain writings and undertakings which are produced on record as Exhibits ‘C’ and ‘D’ to the petition. The said documents are not very relevant to the issues which arise in the present petition.

7. Upon the demise of Ashok Ghodke in harness, disputes arose as regards receipt of retiral/pensionary benefits as also the claim for compassionate appointment. In order to resolve this dispute, an agreement dated 20th August, 2008 was entered into between Chhaya (respondent No. 3), Nitin (son of Ashok and Chhaya), Sachin (son of Ashok and Nirmala) and Leelabai (mother of Ashok). As noted earlier, the present petition is instituted by Leelabai and Sachin (petitioner Nos. 1 and 2) and Chhaya is impleaded as respondent No. 3.

8. In terms of the said agreement dated 20th August, 2008 it was agreed that all pensionary benefits due and payable to Ashok Ghodke would be solely and entirely paid to Chhaya (respondent No. 3). In lieu of this, Chhaya, consented that the claim of Sachin (petitioner No. 2) be considered for compassionate appointment with the Railways. This agreement was duly signed and notarized by all the parties to the same. This agreement is annexed as Exhibit ‘F’ to the petition.

9. It appears that despite the agreement dated 20th August, 2008, the Railway Authorities, refused to disburse the pensionary benefits in their entirety to Chhaya unless, Chhaya were to produce orders from competent Court of law, including, a succession certificate. Accordingly, Chhaya, was constrained to instit