JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the order dated 16.10.2017 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Bench at Ranchi in OA/051/00150/2016 has been assailed by which while allowing the original application, following directions have been passed :-

(i) Release the death benefits to the two widows, as per their shares agreed upon, after realizing the Railway dues payable by the widows from their respective shares legally; and

(ii) To consider the daughter of the 2nd wife for compassionate appointment.

2. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :-

It is the case of the petitioner that late Md. Usman Khan was an employee working as Sr.SE (Sig) Dhanbad and he expired on 25.07.2001 while in service. During his lifetime, he had contracted two marriages, first time with Respondent No.1 & second time with Respondent No.2 (now deceased). The second marriage was contracted by late Md. Usman without permission from the railway authorities in contravention of rule 21 of the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966.

3. After the death of the employee, namely, late Md. Usman, both respondent Nos. 1 & 2 gave contradictory statements regarding marriage and second marriage by the employee and, as such, on account of such dispute, railway authorities directed respondents to bring succession certificate from the competent court.

4. The Respondent No.1, first wife, submitted succession certificate No. 30/2002 dated 19.03.2009 authorising her to receive 9/16th of the share of deceased employee against which second wife, Respondent No.2 submitted a representation and also preferred a Miscellaneous Appeal bearing M.A. No. 165/2009 before this Court and on such state of affairs, no amount was paid to either of the respondents.

5. Thereafter, during the pendency of the aforesaid Miscellaneous Appeal, both the respondents entered into a compromise between them with the condition that Respondent No.1 shall get 09 annas and Respondent No.2 shall get 07 annas respectively. Further it was agreed between them that Miss. Jaslin Hena, daughter from the 2nd wife shall claim for compassionate appointment. The aforesaid Misc. Appeal was disposed of by this Hon'ble Court in terms of the compromise vide order dated 19.08.2014.

6. Thereafter, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were informed by the railway authorities concerned that total amount of the deceased Md. Usman for payment is coming around Rs.9,13,831/- whereas an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (at present Rs.9,78,640/- up to April, 2018) is recoverable by the railway authorities on account of rent, water charges, electric charges and penal rent of unauthorised occupation of the railway quarter by Respondent No.2, namely, Smt. Nasrin Bano, the second wife. Again dispute arose between Respondent Nos.1 and 2 regarding distribution of the retirement dues and further it came to light that there were contradictions with regard to the statements of the Respondent No.1 who claimed that deceased employee entered into second marriage with her consent and Respondent No.2 claimed that deceased entered into marriage with her after giving divorce to Respondent No.1.

7. Due to the aforesaid contradiction, the amount of retirement dues was not paid. Further, vide letter dated 10.06.2015, Respondent No.2 was informed that case of Miss Jaslin Hena cannot be considered for compassionate appointment as Respondent No.2 happens to be the second wife of the Deceased employee Late Md. Usman who had contracted second marriage without permission from the railway authorities required under rule 21 of the service conduct rules.

8. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal with a prayer for a direction to the respondents to pay retiral dues to the tune of 9 Annas to Respondent No.1 & to the tune of 7 Annas to Respon