1. The decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17 October 2001 is challenged. Too technical a stand is taken by the railway administration in the present matter. Basically, it is matter of indecision and leaving this matter to the tribunal to take a decision of the railway administration. One ex-railway employee, who had his last post as a Deputy Electrical Superintendent, Eastern Railway, Jamalpur, died in harness. He had two wives. The first wife, it is acknowledged, was admitted to a mental asylum and this is certified on record. In the circumstances, he married again. From the first wife, he had no child. From the second wife he had one son.

2. In so far as the post retirement benefits and family pensions are concerned the railway administration saw to it and these were shared between the two wives. When the matter came down to the son of the second wife applying for a job in which the first wife as appears from the record, had also supported the application the railway administration made an issue on it.

3. Having split the pensionary benefits between the two wives, the court fails to understand where is the difficulty in providing a job under the rule of harness to the son of the second wife when as the record shows there is no rival and the first wife has given consent that the son of the second wife be employed.

4. In any case, this petition is a frivolous one.

5. Dismissed.