Post-marriage nominations excluding wife are invalid; wife remains primary eligible for railway death benefits per records and rules.

ORDER

Per: Hon’ble Dr. A. K. Dubey, Member (A)

1. Applicant who is father of a deceased railway servant has filed this OA, seeking following reliefs: -

“8.1 Lord ships be pleased to admit this petition. And be pleased to direct the respondent to consider the claim of the applicant for the death benefit and compassionate appointment to his daughter with all consequential benefit.

8.2 That the Hon’ble tribunal may be kindly pleased to call for the entire record of the applicant in possession of the respondent for its kind perusal.

8.3 any other relief which the Hon’ble tribunal deems fit.

8.4 That the Hon’ble tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the present case may further be pleased to grant cost of the application to the applicant.

2. On 09.11.2022 this tribunal heard the matter on the issue of maintainability of this OA as well as on MA No. 279/2023, seeking vacation of interim relief and to consider said aspect the following facts are necessary.

2.1 The applicant is aggrieved by the order of the respondent dated 29.08.2022 (Annexure A/1) intimating him that his application/legal notice for grant of compassionate appointment was under investigation. On receipt of the case, the same would be processed. In this particular case, the applicant whose son was appointed on 29.12.2011 as Pointsman under the then prevailing LARSGESS Scheme. His son expired on 07.06.2022 while in service. Now, the applicant has approached this Tribunal claiming the benefits admissible upon the death of the son in harness as also appointment of the applicant‟s daughter on compassionate ground.

2.2 The applicant‟s say is that after the son got married in 2012, he started living separately from the applicant. Later, the marital discord appeared between his son and daughter-in-law. It is alleged by the applicant that the daughter-in-law had made certain complaints with the police, consequent upon which, police harassed and tortured his son. The applicant also contends that the wife of the deceased employee and the in-laws of his son continued to harass his deceased son due to which, his son became bed ridden. The applicant claims that he and his family took care of his son in that condition; his son being bed ridden, was unable to attend the duty under railway.

2.3 The OA informs that in the year 2020, the applicant‟s daughter-in-law filed divorce petition before the learned family court, Nadiad vide HMP No. 13/2020. Eventually, the son expired on 07.06.2022 while under treatment. Upon expiry of his son, the applicant made a detailed representation before the respondents taking the plea that the widow of his son had re-married and hence the compassionate appointment and other pensionary benefits should be admitted to the applicant‟s daughter. In this regard, the counsel of the applicant issued an advocate notice on 01.07.2022, besides filing a complaint through the CPGRAM Registration No. MORLY/E/2022/16805 dated 27.08.2022. It is in response of this complaint that the communication dated 29.08.2022 (Annexure A/1) impugned here was received by the applicant. The applicant also claims that he had made another representation to higher ups in the Ministry as well as filed an RTI application on 05.09.2022 demanding a copy of the nomination form of his son. By way of reply to the RTI application, the respondents gave the form of nomination which the applicant claims that it is not legible.

3. The respondent no.1, 2 & 4 filed the reply mainly contending that the grievance of the applicant was misconceived and not tenable and in particular, m